Anonymous ID: 39a967 #InternetBillOfRights May 20, 2018, 8:05 p.m. No.1489251   🗄️.is 🔗kun

INTERNET BILL OF RIGHTS

 

Let your voices be heard!

Let's start a storm #InternetBillofRights

 

Please, spread the word about the Petition and remind the people that they do indeed have the POWER and VOICE to create CHANGE

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-18

 

>#1. We The People have the Right to complete free speech when on the Internet.

>#2. We have the right and shall be guaranteed absolute privacy when online. There shall be no unauthorized monitoring, recording, or storing of our data at any time.

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

>#5. We have the Right to select and appoint a new special council to oversee these Rights, and a report on the State of The American Internet shall be submitted to POTUS by January 15th of each year.

 

bit. ly/QIBOR

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-18

If you have yet to sign and are on the fence about it, be BRAVE

 

WE ARE WITH YOU

==WWG1WGA

Anonymous ID: 39a967 May 20, 2018, 8:11 p.m. No.1489340   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Welcome anon to the Internet Bill of Rights thread

Drop all memes, and any arguments you have heard from naysayers so that we may brainstorm further tactics

 

WWG1WGA

TOGETHER WE ARE INVINCIBLE

Anonymous ID: 39a967 May 20, 2018, 8:14 p.m. No.1489376   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Thank you Patriots for you support and creativity!

 

YOU ARE ALL TRUE HEROES!

 

I AM PERSONALLY HONORED TO SERVE WITH YOU IN THIS REVOLUTION TO RESTORE OUR REPUBLIC!

 

GOD BLESS YOU ANON

 

GOD BLESS YOU PATRIOTS

 

WWG1WGA!!!!

Anonymous ID: 1a7838 May 24, 2018, 7:12 a.m. No.1527546   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>Trump can't block Twitter followers, federal judge says

 

And twitter has routinely banned conservatives from what this judge considered a public forum.

 

Does this mean twitter is violating 1st amendment?

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: e7ca7b May 24, 2018, 7:07 p.m. No.1534085   🗄️.is 🔗kun

You will strongly want to include the ability to repair, fix, reverse engineer and basically OWN your own device.

 

A lot of companies give you devices with nasty 'as a service' contract where you don't technically own your own device. This is a MAJOR STUMBLING BLOCK TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

 

Imagine, for example, your device was restricted in a way, or, as is the case with a lot of Android phones, had agreements in place with companies (IE Facebook) to siphon off your data.

 

Your only options at present are: jailbreak and void warranty, possibly even lose cell service, or comply with the data slurp, spying and restrictions.

 

The inability to repair a device means more and more devices will be SEALED SHUT and CONTAIN PHYSICAL BACKDOORS, including, but not limited to, ALWAYS ON GPS, MICROPHONES, CAMERAS, INFRARED SENSORS. Mandating a device MUST BE REPAIRABLE allows you to TAKE IT APART and PHYSICALLY INSPECT THE DEVICE, for things such as HARDWARE BASED BACKDOORS.

 

Otherwise, the IBOR is circumventable with the line that 'it's owned by a private company, they can do whatever they want'. If, however, a device must be fully owned by the person who purchases (IE you) without reprisal, and the device can be repaired (read: taken apart and analysed), hardware based tracking becomes substantially more difficult: pop open phone, burn a hole in the tracking device (or remove it and use it as evidence to sue their balls off for violation of your rights).

 

You may also want to make sure the laws apply to both private and public entities.

 

Remember, the constitution went through numerous drafts, revisions and improvements before it became a widely accepted thing.

Anonymous ID: 39a967 May 25, 2018, 3:46 a.m. No.1536950   🗄️.is 🔗kun

@POTUS

#InternetBillOfRights

#IBOR

#IBORamp

 

President Trump has given us a public forum to discuss political manners without threat of Shadowbanning and Censorship.

 

START A STORM AND TWEET AWAY!

LET OUR VOICES BE HEARD!

 

>>1536935

>>1536905

Anonymous ID: 253a97 May 25, 2018, 9:06 a.m. No.1538603   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8615 >>8750 >>3396

Reality check on amending the constitution…It will take a lot of work!

 

Do you know there has been a movement to amend the Constitution to include the right of parents to direct their children's upbringing? to make basic medical and educational decisions on behalf of their children without "undue government interference"?

 

Do you have any clue how much effort it takes for the Constitution to be amended?

 

Do you know how long the Parental Rights movement has been going?

 

Since 2009

 

And we still haven't gotten it yet. Maybe draining the swamp will help…eventually…

 

Things like the following are why the movement started:

https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/hold-judges-accountable/

1/2

The Law Versus Judge Lyris Younge

May 23, 2018

PA Court

 

Room 5A of the Philadelphia Family Court is one of those places parental rights go to die. Or it would be, if presiding judge Lyris Younge had her way.

 

“She has the capacity to be a good judge,” one lawyer who has served before her told The Legal Intelligencer for a recent article, “but she has these bad days where she takes it out on the families.”

 

Since being elected to the bench in 2016, Younge has led all judges in the court’s dependency division in the number of cases appealed, with 156. Of these, 79 have been closed (decided), and 8 have been at least partially overturned. That 10% may not sound like much, but it dwarfs the second highest rate of reversal, which is 2 cases out of 112, or only 1.8%.

 

And if a similar 10% rate applied to all of Judge Younge’s cases including those who couldn’t afford to appeal, that would affect thousands of families.Significantly, half of Younge’s overturned cases involve due process: she didn’t just make a mistaken ruling; she denied them a fair trial at all.

 

A Bathroom Break Bars a Mom from the Courtroom

In one of Younge’s earliest cases, a mother became physically ill and had to run to the nearest bathroom before her attorney could ask for a recess. In retaliation, the judge refused to let her back into the courtroom. The case became the first overturned on appeal.

 

“[T]he trial court violated the mother’s constitutional guarantee to due process when it precluded her from the opportunity to be heard,” the appellate court declared.

Anonymous ID: 253a97 May 25, 2018, 9:08 a.m. No.1538615   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8750

>>1538603

 

https://parentalrightsfoundation.org/hold-judges-accountable/

2/2

 

Judge Refuses to Hear Evidence; Seeks to Separate Parents and Child

Yet another decision was reversed on appeal earlier this month, marking at least Younge’s ninth reversal in just over two years.

 

In In the Interest of N.M., the parents of a baby girl for two years jumped through every hoop set before them to try to get their daughter returned, only to have Judge Younge change the permanency goal from reunification to termination of parental rights, then grant the termination.

 

N. M. was only seven months old when she was removed from her parents’ care on a suspicion of abuse. She was found to have broken ribs which a “pediatrician with a concentration in child abuse cases” testified was from “non-accidental trauma.” Both parents consistently denied any knowledge of how the trauma could have occurred. Unfortunately for them, innocence was not an option.

 

Judge Younge was quoted in the appeals case: “either someone has to cop to [the abuse] or there has to be a plausible explanation…. Until we get some closure about how this happened, we’re not going to get beyond this.”

 

As to whether the parents could present expert medical testimony suggesting other possible causes for the injuries besides neglect, Younge assured the parents, “I would allow a doctor to testify today. I would. I would. I absolutely would.”

 

Yet the appeals court noted, “The court again refused to accept from Attorney Freeman the reports and curriculum vitae of two doctors regarding a non-abusive explanation for N.M.’s injuries.”

 

The family jumped through every hoop, but their effort availed them nothing. The judge “[found] that the parents are fully compliant. It doesn’t move the needle for me.”

 

On appeal, the court reversed Judge Younge’s decision to terminate the parents’ rights or even to change the permanency goal to termination. But they didn’t stop there.

 

“We find ourselves constrained to comment as follows,” Justice Lazarus wrote for the court.

 

“[D]espite record evidence that the trial court allegedly relied upon, the one factor, the elephant in the room, is that the trial judge was and remains the cause of the deteriorated bond between Parents and N.M. in this matter.

 

“The record is replete with attempts by Parents to meet the goals set by the trial judge, however she continued to put up barriers to reunification….

 

“In short, despite the goals of Child Protective Services Law, the trial judge seems to have done everything in her power to alienate these parents from their child, appears to have a fixed idea about this matter and, further, she prohibited evidence to be introduced that might have forced her to change her opinion.

 

“While this court must take and does take the issue of abuse of a child very seriously, the fact that a trial judge tells parents that unless one of them ‘cops to an admission of what happened to the child’ they are going to lose their child, flies in the face of not only the CPSL[aw], but of the entire body of case law with regard to the best interests of the child and family reunification.” [emphasis added]

 

Our hope, and clearly that of the superior court, is that Judge Younge will give the parents a fair shake moving forward. We would add the hope that one day soon this little girl will be safely returned to the parents who love her, who have put everything on hold for two years to satisfy a judge who simply would not be satisfied.

 

Needed: Good Laws and Good Judges

We’ve said it time and again: to get good results, we have to have good judges and good laws. Our efforts to present policymakers with model legislation that will aid families, including a Parental Rights Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, arises from this understanding. We work to provide the best possible laws not only to preserve the vital right of parents to defend their families, but to rein in judges whenever we can.

 

As for good judges, one need look no further than Philadelphia to see why they are so important—and why they can’t be taken for granted. The rules must be changed, not only to let good judges thrive, but to keep bad judges accountable.

 

— TAKE ACTION: RAISE AWARENESS —

 

Pass this email along to your friends and family who care about their children, and invite them to sign up for updates from the Parental Rights Foundation. Join us in raising awareness for the need to protect parental rights in law and in the Constitution.

 

Together we are mobilizing an army of parents to defend our rights and bring much needed change to the system intended to save children, which so often destroys families instead.

 

As always, thank you for standing with us to protect your children by empowering you, the parent.

 

Sincerely,

 

Michael Ramey

Director of Communications & Research

Anonymous ID: 39a967 May 25, 2018, 11:06 a.m. No.1539559   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>3551

Does the shadow ban for spamming affect you if it is directed @POTUS?

This would spread the #InternetBillOfRights wouldn't it? or does it not count if single accounts are spamming the hashtag multiple times?

Anonymous ID: 16da7e May 25, 2018, 5:32 p.m. No.1543062   🗄️.is 🔗kun

hey thread owner, keep posting your updated IBoR stuff here!

some of us are still around and watching… AND DOING!

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: e77ded May 25, 2018, 6:06 p.m. No.1543396   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7431

>>1538603

At this particular stage we don't have to "amend" the constitution, as an internet bill would be, generally speaking, global (if the rights only applied to America, it would defeat the point of it being a bill for the internet).

 

As someone outside America, I have a very strong interest in ensuring IBOR succeeds globally, because it's the kind of protections myself and others cannot presently enjoy (police arresting people for making twitter bomb jokes whilst allowing pedophiles to go scot-free in Rotherham is the biggest fucking outrage in a century and not a single complaint from anyone anywhere).

 

If enough countries adopt or ratify IBOR (I'm hoping EU gets on board because once they adopt it, it will force pretty much everyone else to do so as well), it would become de facto.

 

It might not be in the constitution, but I think IBOR reinforces the American constitution nicely (both support freedom of speech, and I bet a judge would argue freedom of speech on the internet is hypothetically covered by said pre-existing constitution).

 

Adding it to the constitution might not be possible, but if we could shore it up to be difficult to assail as Section 230 was and have it unilaterally enforced by other countries (so it 'overlaps'), not only would this allow freedom of speech for individuals like myself, but also for those in countries who have no voice to start speaking out.

 

Otherwise, one of your major issues is companies will move overseas in order to avoid complying with IBOR, like they already do with GDPR for countries outside the EU.

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: e77ded May 25, 2018, 6:21 p.m. No.1543551   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1539559

If your idea is to 'trojan horse' the fact Trump blocked people on twitter in order to force the hypocrisy of Twitter's own blocking/banning, it's hypothetically possible.

 

But the coverage would be extremely narrow (and I imagine the crooked judge would apply double-standards).

 

Firstly, it would only apply to 'public' accounts (EG politicians).

 

Secondly, it would only apply to Americans (a point skipped by the judge conveniently in the rulings; the Twitter block lifts would only apply to Americans who have a right to freedom of speech in their own country - it does not expand to other citizens in other countries, however the judge omitted that key detail to maliciously insinuate Trump had to unban everyone).

 

Furthermore, it likely wouldn't apply to illegal content (the judge again skips whether or not Trump could block someone who just spams child porn or offers of illegal activities etc).

 

That said, the judge does mandate that if Trump cannot block users from public forums… neither can Twitter.

 

If Trump or a shadowbanned user not allowed to post on another politician's account (strongly recommend another politician), in theory, Twitter are obliged to let them post in a public domain.

 

Otherwise, if they use private v public as an argument, I'd call bullshit, because the Trump account is already private.

 

Either way, the ruling is very inconsistent to the kind of abusive practices otherwise allowed by Twitter, Facebook etc.

 

I hope that hypocrisy gets exposed further and triggers outrage.

 

My personal opinion are ALL social media outlets are effectively PUBLIC utilities. Imagine if a corporation owned all of the roads, but banned some people driving on it based on their views or religious beliefs. The roads are public utilities, but it's owned privately.

 

My thoughts are anything that is a 'public utility' (to the degree it is practically 'depended upon') trumps any 'privately owned' arguments. Otherwise you allow water companies to cut off your water if they don't like who you are or what you say (if they cut you off for being critical of them, there'd be an outrage).

Anonymous ID: b818d0 The IBOR Movement Is Being Hijacked And Sabotaged May 26, 2018, 4:24 a.m. No.1546953   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7072 >>7509 >>1333

The petition on 5/26 has only 5868 signatures. Two days ago it had 5495 signatures. That's a gain of 183 signatures per day. The petition is well on the way to failure just as the 2 that we've attempted before this one have failed. This is not due to a lack of enthusiasm or support. This movement has been hijacked and it is being sabotaged.

 

I think you know must know as well as I do that we have way more than enough support to get 100K signatures on that petition in a month, and yet twice before now we haven't even come close.

 

This is not due to a lack of success in collecting signatures. I believe the petition is being deliberately derailed by fake MAGA supporters each time we put it up. I also believe that there's someone who actually has the ability to in some way electronically hijack the WH petition process. Let me share the observations I've made that lead me to these conclusions.

 

We successfully gained almost 400,000 signatures on our petition to designate Antifa as a terrorist organization earlier this year.

 

Our support base has grown, not shrunk.

 

The left has over 1 million signatures on a petition to force POTUS to disclose his tax returns. I saw that petition close at nearly 200K signatures earlier this year. How did it get to 1 million signatures now?

 

The first IBOR petition finished with less than 6000 signatures in March of this year. I noticed that someone was running a 2nd petition with different language from the one put out by the QAnons that had been put up 2 or 3 days later. They both failed with less than 6000 signatures.

 

When the QAnon petition failed I immediately copied the exact same text and republished it the same day it failed determined to personally shepherd it through the process but with close monitoring.

 

My followers started contacting me to say that they were confused about a 2nd petition being circulated (again). I saw the 2nd petition, which had changed the language to advocate rights for conservatives only. I didn't want to bog the movement down in a fight over petitions so I signed the second one and advised my followers to sign both.

 

One of the people circulating the second petition retweeted the QAnon version that I was circulating with a message to say that I was circulating the wrong petition, that it should be disregarded and only the one he was circulating should be signed.

 

I contacted him and asked that he retract his misleading message. That I was recirculating the original petition, that his was the new one and that I was asking followers to sign both to avoid confusion and he could do the same if he wished. He did not stop obstructing.

 

The people pushing the alt petition never had as many as 300 followers but on the 3rd day the petition they were circulating had 13,000 signatures. I have more than 12K followers but the one I was circulating didn't have 200 signatures on the 3rd day. If they were on the up and up, why would they be discouraging anyone from signing both petitions?

 

The original version finished with a little over 500 signatures in 30 days. Something was obstructing the signature captures on the WH site.

 

Q made a new post referencing IBOR on 5/15 and I was preparing to again republish the original petition but I checked first and lo and behold, somebody had immediately put up an IBOR petition again using different language from that which was used in the original QAnon petition published on 2/3. This language is really bad, worse than the first modification in that it asks for 'rights' that are not in fact rights.

 

We do not have a 'right' to all the best technology available. We have a right to access the internet without invasion of privacy, freedom of speech or censorship.

 

We do not have a right to a special counsel. What purpose would a special counsel even serve sitting on taxpayers dime every day watching the internet to prosecute who?

 

Report to congress on what? Having a special counsel could in fact further compromise internet rights. Placing so much power in 'a person' politically appointed who could sit and do nothing while serving as an obstruction to anyone else doing anything because the special counsel is responsible would not further internet rights.

 

If we get enough signatures on it we would have accomplished nothing as the demands it makes could not be granted even through legislation.

 

The original language used for the petition published on 2/3 is perfect. I think we need to go back to it and republish. We also need to figure out how the WH site is being compromised. I sent requests for answers using the WH petition site process to raise a concern and got no response.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1546953 May 26, 2018, 5:06 a.m. No.1547105   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7170

Tell me how that's a 'right'?

 

We have a right to access an uncensored internet free of privacy invasion.

 

We do not have a legislative right to specify the quality of universally available technology. If you want better quality technology, better than what is offered for free universally, you have to pay for available technology upgrades. We are not advocating to topple the free market.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547105 May 26, 2018, 5:30 a.m. No.1547197   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7207

And I asked how is that a 'right' brainiac. You might also address how access to the most currently available technology has anything at all to do with internet freedom. Are you asserting that forcing use of the most currently available technology for the internet is somehow related to uncensored, privacy protected access to the internet?

Anonymous ID: f04eac May 26, 2018, 5:32 a.m. No.1547207   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1547197

Where does it say that is a right?

What level is your reading comprehension at bud?

>#1. We The People have the Right to complete free speech when on the Internet.

>#2. We have the right and shall be guaranteed absolute privacy when online. There shall be no unauthorized monitoring, recording, or storing of our data at any time.

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

>#5. We have the Right to select and appoint a new special council to oversee these Rights, and a report on the State of The American Internet shall be submitted to POTUS by January 15th of each year

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547197 May 26, 2018, 5:35 a.m. No.1547217   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7219

The stupidity is overwhelming here. This is an Internet Bill of RIGHTS that we are talking about. If it's not considered to be a right, it should not be included in a Bill of 'RIGHTS'.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547224 May 26, 2018, 6:02 a.m. No.1547305   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7480 >>7610

Well then. I don't need to expose you as a shill and a saboteur asswipe. You expose yourself.

 

I am a new anon in that I have been here less than 1 year silently watching, reading and learning. I fight daily for the cause and would never attack a fellow anon/patriot who is also fighting for the cause, even if I disagreed with an opinion or position taken. You obviously do not share that degree of character. Nigger? What fucking sewer hole did you crawl out of?

 

Here's the bottom line. This:

 

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

 

is bullshit. Dictating how current the internet software platform is in terms of quality and power has nothing to do with internet freedom.

Wants and desires have no place in a Bill of RIGHTs. Maybe you should be advocating for a snowflake bill of 'wants and desires' where what you think we should be stupid enough to advocate for would make more sense.

 

Advocating for an internet rights special counsel is a flagrantly obvious attempt to sabotage this movement. We have no RIGHT to a special counsel and don't need one. Having one could do far more harm to rights than good.

 

This is also bullshit:

 

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

 

We have no right to dictate how the internet platform is maintained as long as there are no differences made to selectively censor or restrict full available access.

 

Nobody was born stupid enough to come up with this shit by accident. It's by design. It's sabotage. There is NO actual internet freedom from censorship, the primary concern, in this fucked up bullshit excuse for a reiteration of the original IBOR petition which DID NOT NEED CHANGING.

 

Attack me all you want it just exposes you more for what you are – a saboteurfaggot.

Anonymous ID: 253a97 May 26, 2018, 6:29 a.m. No.1547431   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Yes, your points make a lot of sense…especially as the EU's GDPR has been making every one and their brother email updates to us in the US about their terms of service/privacy policy. The internet is WW. WWG1WWA!

 

https://gdpr-info.eu/key-issues/

 

>>1543396

>At this particular stage we don't have to "amend" the constitution, as an internet bill would be, generally speaking, global (if the rights only applied to America, it would defeat the point of it being a bill for the internet).

>

>As someone outside America, I have a very strong interest in ensuring IBOR succeeds globally, because it's the kind of protections myself and others cannot presently enjoy

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1543396 May 26, 2018, 6:42 a.m. No.1547507   🗄️.is 🔗kun

I agree that we don't need to amend the constitution to pursue the enforcement of rights already guaranteed by our constitution, free and uncensored speech in the public arena (which the internet is despite the argument that privately owned 'applications' on a public platform are exempt), and; privacy.

 

I also agree that the fight for an IBOR governing the world wide web is a world fight and WWG1WGA. We are stronger fighting together.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547305 May 26, 2018, 6:46 a.m. No.1547525   🗄️.is 🔗kun

Thank you for that clarification. I hated to think that Richard Duke's relatives were MAGA anons. I proudly accept the handle of newfag since I don't deny being one of those probably for some time to come. However, this newfag didn't come without pre-existing brain power.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1546953 May 26, 2018, 6:48 a.m. No.1547535   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7547

You keep exposing your ignorance. You should get a handle on that. I said AFTER THE ORIGINAL QAnon PETITION EXPIRED I immediately republished it using the exact same text.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1546953 May 26, 2018, 6:52 a.m. No.1547553   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7671

YOU on the other hand are obviously supporting whoever IS submitting duplicates (and did so 2 or 3 days after the original petition was published and again when I republished the original) each time changing the text to something Q would not have us advocating. Q read and blessed the first IBOR petition, NOT the bullshit substitution you're arguing for now saboteurfag.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547535 May 26, 2018, 6:57 a.m. No.1547583   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7671

Have a great day saboteurfag. I hope you've got air conditioning in your mother's basement. The temps have risen everywhere and we wouldn't want your brain to overheat and cause a stench now would we?

Anonymous ID: 253a97 May 26, 2018, 7:02 a.m. No.1547610   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7627

>>1547170

>>1547305

>We have no right to dictate how the internet platform is maintained as long as there are no differences made to selectively censor or restrict full available access.

>

>Nobody was born stupid enough to come up with this by accident. It's by design. It's sabotage. There is NO actual internet freedom from censorship, the primary concern, in this fucked up bullshit excuse for a reiteration of the original IBOR petition which DID NOT NEED CHANGING.

 

Honest opinions: I read the 'access' part and thought several things.

A. that part sounds like it was written by a snowflake, but basic access maybe should be considered a public utility

B there is most certainly classified tech we don't/can't/likely won't get

C I would want a lawyerfag to refine the whole thing, we need to distill down to basics to get it moving anywhere

D I though i'll wait to sign until I see C happen as well as enough numbers backing it

 

And yes, some language will sabotage the thing…its not D vs R…not conservatives alone…

WWG1WGA

Anonymous ID: 253a97 May 26, 2018, 7:05 a.m. No.1547627   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1547610

 

Also, the patriot act….is in essence anti-IBOR…how do we address how that eroded what we are trying to do? Did you see yesterday how Best Buy was being paid by a gov agency to spy on computers they were repairing…new issue!

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547610 May 26, 2018, 7:13 a.m. No.1547680   🗄️.is 🔗kun

I was hoping POTUS would get rid of the patriot act immediately when he took office and admit to being disappointed when he didn't. I decided he'll get to it and I should be patient, but yes, that should definitely fall to the annals of past history under an IBOR.

 

It would be great to have a lawyerfag vet the IBOR language. We can do this. We need to get out from under the saboteurs, get it right and monitor our progress closely when we republish it again.

 

I have a real time actual signature count tracking strategy in mind.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547610 May 26, 2018, 7:16 a.m. No.1547696   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7837

I saw a report on Best Buy techs spying for the government months ago. I haven't seen the recent story. I'll check it out thanks.

Anonymous ID: f04eac May 26, 2018, 7:20 a.m. No.1547716   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7724 >>7868

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic

Let me break down the fucking language..

We shall be given ACCESS to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its important to our Republic

 

Do you understand how important the internet is? OF ALL THINGS, YOU ARE FUCKING ONLINE HERE AND NOW… DOES IT MAKE SENSE NOW? HOW IMPORTANT THE FUCKING INTERNET IS TO OUR REPUBLIC?

 

DOES IT MAKE SENSE NOW?!

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547610 May 26, 2018, 7:20 a.m. No.1547718   🗄️.is 🔗kun

I should mention though that I have considered the possibility that POTUS may temporarily need to use the presidential powers of the patriot act against those who enacted it for nefarious purposes.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 1547671 May 26, 2018, 7:24 a.m. No.1547743   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7762 >>7794

STFU and go take a nap saboteurfag. I don't have and interest or patience to deal with any more of your ignorant bullshit. Stop trying to waste any more of my time. You've had all you're going to get.

Anonymous ID: f04eac May 26, 2018, 7:38 a.m. No.1547794   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1547743

Oh and sorry, this is just a matter of difference in understanding of this draft of the petiton.

As you can tell, very passionate..

 

I deeply apologize and wish you well.

Hopefully a lawfag can clear this up.

 

Godspeed patriot

WWG1WGA

Anonymous ID: 253a97 May 26, 2018, 7:57 a.m. No.1547868   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7949

>>1547716

If it is 5G

i want nothing to do with it

 

We have to take into consideration that many are blue pilled on the safety of wifi/cellular RF bandwidths. It is (((theirs))).

 

BREAKING: 5G is a Sterilization & Eugenics Program

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pIYPnOM-SXs

 

Look at LIFI

 

I was relieved to hear about an alternative to the DEMON of technology that 5G network is shaping up to be…so long as LED's are safe…

 

LiFi to unlock the Third Industrial Revolution//LiFi - How every LED light could connect you to the Internet

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHWIZsIBj3Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UulEFh8yhCg

https://http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O-ncPjD1IeY

Anonymous ID: b818d0 >>1547868 May 26, 2018, 8:39 a.m. No.1548110   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8138

You can tell I'm a newfag. I replied to the wrong anon.

 

Ditto, no 5G. They think we're stupid. Internet infrastructure doesn't have anything to do with internet freedom anyway. Including it in the IBOR would be a perfect way for (((them))) to get stupid anons to fight for their own murder.

Anonymous ID: f04eac May 26, 2018, 9:03 a.m. No.1548308   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8460

>>1548184

Yeah and sorry about earlier, if I end up being completely wrong about this draft then I take full responsibility for being deceived. But honestly I see it as a valid petiton that deserved promotion. And at the very least will be some form of acknowledgment to the White House that the internet and its accessibility to the public is of great importance to upholding our freedoms we hold dear.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 May 26, 2018, 9:29 a.m. No.1548460   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>8642

>>1548308

And where do you see that I argued differently? I didn't argue the need for an IBOR and we're not talking about a 'draft'. The document I posted to express concern about is published on the WH site. You didn't address the concerns I raised. You attacked me for raising them. There's no need for you and I to go back and forth on this. I stand by the concerns I raised. They are not reduced by this 'lawfag' who just happened to show up.

Let's agree to disagree and move on. I'm okay with you hating me.

Anonymous ID: 8662a6 May 26, 2018, 10 a.m. No.1548642   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1548460

How many attempts will we have to sign this at 100K? As many as it takes!

 

WWG1WGA!

 

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/internet-bill-rights-18

Anonymous ID: 077d31 May 26, 2018, 1:25 p.m. No.1550208   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>0278 >>1573 >>1672

#1. We The People have the Right to complete free speech when on the Internet.

 

The first amendment covers this.

 

>#2. We have the right and shall be guaranteed absolute privacy when online.

 

You only have a right to privcy when inside your home or property. The internet is outside of those boundries. If in oder to use a private platform ie tweeterb and agree to their terms you have no recourse.

 

There shall be no unauthorized monitoring, recording, or storing of our data at any time.

 

You gave up those rights with terms of agreement. Companies that violated your tight will pay heavy fines.

 

>#3. We shall be given access to the most up to date and powerful technology available to us, with all provisions & efforts made by our elected officials to ensure that our Internet quality is always reflective of its importance to our Republic.

 

This is so socailist it is beyond belief. You have no right to anything unless you build itb a company that has built it allows you to use it. So again terms of agreement.

 

Only a facist would support this part. It's actually a whing fucking David Hogg demand. Why not throw in free ammo.

 

>#4. We have the Right to NOT have our Internet throttled, prioritized, or restricted in any way.

 

It isn't your internet. It's not a public owned operation and hopefully never will be.

 

>#5. We have the Right to select and appoint a new special council to oversee these Rights, and a report on the State of The American Internet shall be submitted to POTUS by January 15th of each year.

 

This one is beyond stupod the SC law is unconstituional as is this last childess demand.

 

WWG1WGA

 

This piece of crap tskes away from what is going on and makes me wonder who runs this op

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: 5f4c7b May 26, 2018, 4:03 p.m. No.1551333   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1546953

"I believe the petition is being deliberately derailed"

 

Natural News, when petitioning about vaccines, found that despite hundreds of thousands of people signing (and reporting that they had signed), that the number never budged - kinda like how YouTube diddles the subscriber numbers or view count.

 

The president needs to implement a means of accepting alternative petitions from outside the government website (so long as it has an equal standard/level of detail).

 

That way, we could independently verify we have over the 500,000 signers mark, submit, then get a follow up on the WH website - to confirm the numbers are being forged/manipulated.

 

Believe me, the resistance to actual petitions on government websites is unreal.

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: 5f4c7b May 26, 2018, 4:31 p.m. No.1551530   🗄️.is 🔗kun

My proposed draft of IBOR (not yet a petition as I think we should try to get bigger organisations to weigh in):

 

1) Right to freedom of speech, with;

1a) right of reply (confers immunity to libel, slander, etc lawsuits)

1b) neutral hosting requirement (IE cannot censor based on political opinions, views etc otherwise becomes liable for slanderous, copyrighted etc content posted by users as it signals they can moderate)

 

2) Right to privacy, except;

2a) When a warrant is issued by a publicly electable judge in a transparent court (secret courts are explicitly prohibited), subject to periodic review of the approved warrants (to ensure they are not just being rubberstamped without question)

2b) Unless compliance is practically impossible (EG a generally unbreakable encryption algorithm means you have no obligation to 'crack' the algorithm to comply with the warrant, etc).

 

3) Reasonable right of access (governments, corporations, are not allowed to impede your access to the internet and should make reasonable accomodations to support access, however this isn't carte blache for them to bend over backwards, IE you're still expected to pay, you can't demand they install costly infrastructure - it just means they can't generally block or throttle your access as an indirect means of censorship, or demand unusually high costs in comparison to the average, etc).

 

4) Right of ownership/right of repair (AKA right to own the device you buy, for example, companies can't just install a physical backdoor and then seal it up with T&Cs stating you don't 'truly' own the device, even if you paid a lump sum for it; you're allowed to reverse engineer it, take it apart, repair, fix, modify it etc which allows you to remove hardware based backdoors)

 

5) Right of public utility (if a thing (EG website) is publicly viewable, or it's contents are publicly well known, then by rights you must be given access, and cannot be censored from participating, if it behaves like or is a public utility).

 

 

I think points 1 and 2 are bare minimum. Points 3 and 4 are 'practically mandatory' because without them, censorship would simply occur indirectly (rather than a company 'obviously' censoring you, they would 'inobviously' censor you, EG give (falsified) service errors, cause problems, or alternatively spy on you via hardware backdoors etc).

 

5 is a mildly redundant provision (technically, it's 1 couched in different terms), but it's there as an explicit counter to the 'but we're a private company'. If it walks like a public utility, and quacks like a public utility, then goddamn, it's a public utility.

Anonymous ID: b818d0 May 26, 2018, 4:36 p.m. No.1551573   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>6521

>>1550208

We agree on most of the points that you make, especially as regards to the snowflake socialist demands some saboteurfag included in this current IBOR petition that's being circulated now.

 

I disagree with your take on the the right to privacy being limited to home or property locations. Congress recognized digital privacy rights on the internet with their passage of the Email Privacy Act (EPA) which expansively covers all digital communications and content.

 

The House amended the EPA last year to remove the 180 day limitation on the age of content protected so that digital privacy would be protected under the 4th amendment no matter how long it's been on the internet along with some additional updated provisions recognizing the current state of the internet and the WWW – https://www.multichannel.com/news/house-passes-e-mail-privacy-act-410716

 

The courts recognized the applicability of the 4th amendment to digital privacy at the state and local levels but there hasn't been a federal case to establish consitutionality. The EPA is intended to achieve that.

 

The amendment passed by the House is now hung up in the Senate. They last deliberated on it in July 2017 for the second time.

 

https://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/305042/the-email-privacy-act-makes-its-way-to-the-senate.html

 

Hopefully if we pass an IBOR it would serve as an impetus for the Senate to get off their ass on this.

 

Though our 1st amendment rights are protected under the constitution social media platforms are partisan-politically censoring this right.

 

The purpose of an IBOR as regards to both the 1st and 4th amendments is to enact legislation to enforce these protections not only from infringement by the government, but by the private sector as well.

 

The internet belongs to the world and is owned by no one. It was created by the American government but released to the world at large.

 

Private companies create applications that we use on the internet. They used to be satisfied with selling ad space on their platforms giving access to their users in that fashion. Now they

have gotten greedy and they sell our private information and personal content to the highest bidder. Our content is on the internet, which Google, Yahoo, FB, YouTube, etal don't own, though we format and access it through their applications. An IBOR would stipulate that they cannot usurp constitutional rights as a condition of using their platforms. We had no idea they were selling our information until they got caught. We never agreed to that.

 

An IBOR to enforce constitutionally protected 1st and 4th amendment rights from government AND corporate infringement is not far fetched.

 

>>1550208

Anonymous ID: 77e3c7 May 27, 2018, 7:22 a.m. No.1556521   🗄️.is 🔗kun

>>1551573

"I disagree with your take on the the right to privacy being limited to home or property locations."

 

There's a few other counter-examples to privacy being 'home limited', for example, and not limited to:

 

1) Client-Attorney privilege

2) Patient-Doctor privilege (including confidentiality of patient data)

3) Witness protection programs

4) Security matters (confidential, secret, top secret, above top secret, etc)

5) Industrial espionage (specifically, stealing confidential corporate information)

 

My argumentum is that standards should be applied universally. If the government, corporations and healthcare can keep shit secret/private for 'greater good' then citizenry should be granted this same right.

 

Likewise, government documents can be made public for greater good, and likewise citizen's information (usually part of an investigation).

 

Privacy should be the default, not the optional. Privacy is very much like virginity; once you lose your private information, there's no way of getting it back.

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: 77e3c7 May 27, 2018, 7:34 a.m. No.1556605   🗄️.is 🔗kun   >>7479

And just to tack on from my prior argument (regarding pre-existing 'out of home' privacy):

 

Adopting privacy in general is a good thing. Think of the costs losing private information entails:

 

1) Identity fraud (which makes law enforcement difficult, costs banks money)

 

2) Scammers (which means the individual loses their cash)

 

3) Harassment/stalking (once a harasser, stalker, pervert, pedo etc knows where you live, you either have to move - costing a lot of money, job disruption, etc - or ultimately they are going to get you)

 

4) Datamining for manipulation (Obama campaign, Cambridge Analytica, every facebook experiment ever), which is a major tool for dictators and dictatorships

 

5) Frame up for crimes (this is a lesser known aspect: corrupt law enforcement will use the details they can obtain in order to 'build a picture' or 'spin a story' sufficient to frame someone for a crime. Alternatively, obtaining leaked information allows them to justify further, minute surveillance, looking for the slightest technicalities from a major historical perspective. CCTV images of you littering? Expect a suspended jail sentence)

 

6) Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation harassment. Critics primary defence against frivilous SLAPP is to write pseudo-anonymously (or wholly anonymously). If data about them leaks, they may face frivilious lawsuits they cannot afford to defend against.

 

7) Whistleblowers getting jailed. One of the key aspects to whistleblowing in the media (or indeed, in a corporate environment) is true anonymity. Without it, whistleblowers often find themselves charged with technical legalities (such as so-called 'treason' or 'espionage' - despite not working with a 'foreign power') and thus face jail. Journalists, without privacy, cannot provide their sources from scrunity, which lowers the quality of journalism overall.

 

8) Journalists getting killed. One key issue is journalists who do true mudraking and successfully exposes on corruption, can risk being murdered in retaliation (either by the organisations they expose or indirectly in their line of work, for example, front-line coverage in a war). Without a way to work undercover, protecting their identity (in order to expose corruption), journalists will be forced to 'toe the line' on government affairs.

 

I'm pretty sure you can expand the justifications for privacy beyond this, but it isn't merely Johnny keeping his weird fetish porn collection safe - this is about life or death, jail or freedom, truth or dishonesty.

 

Knowing you're truly anonymous, and able to speak out, emboldens free speech.

Anonymous ID: 075528 May 31, 2018, 8:07 p.m. No.1603423   🗄️.is 🔗kun

 

Too bad Twitter doesn't let anyone see the hashtags, unless you happen to be following someone that uses it.

 

We were warned about this shit on 5/16. We were told to get organized and cause a storm. We were told this was testing for midterms. So what now?

 

Most ppl that I've come across have no clue Twitters 'quality filter' exists. Its the ultimate shadowban tool. Instead of targeting each individual user, it blinds every audience member. It was originally marketed as a means to control harassment and abuse, so they say, but then it was re-imagined as a tool to improve the 'quality' of the tweets that you see. They're doing us a favor by getting rid of 'low quality' tweets or those likely coming from bots. #Nowcomesthepain was avg'ing 600/hour, but when I searched the hashtag ZERO tweets displayed under latest. #Qanon was hitting roughly 500/hr and I saw a very limited selection of accts under latest, most were outside the US, but the main acct, with every single one of their tweets showing, was Zak from Infowars. Go figure that Twitter is giving him preferential treatment. All genuine Qanon focused accts, whether they have 300 followers or 300k, are being flagged as 'low quality' and are being hidden in the search results. No one gets thru unless @jack gives his blessing. They tweeked the filter algorithm a few days ago and slammed most non-follower generated traffic to a total halt.

 

Twitter now has nearly total control, now. We can't spread the message if no one sees it.

 

This can all be corrected by turning the piece of shit filter off in acct settings. Once I got rid of it, I saw everyone's tweets again. But how are you supposed to let anyone know theres a problem when you can't reach them? The only way this spreads is through follower tweets and comments.

 

To turn the Quality Filter off from a computer, click your Notifications, then settings in upper right corner, uncheck the box.

 

On Mobile, asshole Twitter was kind enough to include 3 filters, in 3 different places that restrict content:

[1] Privacy & Safety, under safety section, 'display media w sensitive content'

[2] Content Preferences, search settings, 'Hide sensitive content'

[3] Notifications, filters 'Quality filter'

J.TrIDr3ESpPJEs ID: a7a509 May 31, 2018, 8:14 p.m. No.1603508   🗄️.is 🔗kun

For those of you like me who think Twitter are just evil bastards (somehow, like Facebook, I snubbed as many social media tools as possible), there is a reported alternative that is 'Twitter-esque' but pro-freedom of speech called gab.ai:

 

https://gab.ai/

 

It even has a frog that seems kinda pepe-ish as it's icon.

Anonymous ID: b30864 June 9, 2018, 5:32 p.m. No.1682339   🗄️.is 🔗kun

The Internet Bill of Right signing numbers today are weak. I myself been hard at work for US for 18 years, but what I've found in that time is we only respond when we have a similar experience. Q was right when saying we forgot how to fight as We The People. Too many are shy to pull the trigger because trust and order were compromised in past administrations. A call to rally at this point in our history is slow because of division but a day like 9/11 all US flags were seen on porches. Like a beat up pup, he or she will shy from humans until trust is reassured. The fix? We make this a desirable experience as sliding into a Supersport Car ready to drive. You'll feel welcome and want to come back for another run. The QAnons are a welcoming experience but space to participate is limited. I understand your rules of engagement on your boards but if we are to create a driving force maybe it's time for a QAnon Public board so new Fags don't get in your way of work and lock down the Q post for your chosen Anons, just code it. The public will still share and appreciate your effort and Holy Cow did we just allow everyone to ride? Now that's research and participation of the world in an effort of WWG1WGA. New, 'QAnon No Filter', opposition welcome because we love popcorn! We'll deal with the shrills you keep busy and with that some targeted pressure is off Q and your Autistic Anons Kindly remember something, some New Fags are no Sallies.

 

Enjoy The Show

 

https://globebackyard.blogspot.com/2018/06/we-people-show-up-like-agent-smiths.html