60 countries sign declaration to keep future internet open The United States, along with some 60 other countries, today presented a declaration in which they pledge to "reclaim the promise of the internet" from "a trend of rising digital authoritarianism." The global community is increasingly reliant on the internet, the Declaration for the Future of the Internet (DFI) said, and as …
I really should have explained myself. What I'm saying is you can't keep the internet open and ban encryption. The two are incompatible. To keep the internet open it needs to be safe for people to communicate and without encryption that is gone. These are the same governments looking to remove encryption.
Have you tried getting to rt.com for a while from the UK? Thought not. The so-called 'free west' has banned access.
I had to enable JS to get past some DDOS shielding, but it's freely available.
Looks like VoiceOfTruth is yet another VoiceOfPutin. Do fuck off, there's a good puppet.
For the thumbs down, you might like to read this news article (in French) that says, yes, it is blocked in France. It's neither my decision, nor do I care, I'm simply reporting what happens.
Additionally, my phone reports "ERR_CONNECTION_REFUSED" which suggests the blocking is at packet level, so using an alternative DNS wouldn't work. A VPN or proxy, perhaps, but we're getting into techie stuff now. For the average Joe, it is blocked, end of story.
PS: I do note the irony of talking about two bullshit providers being blocked in the comments of an article where the same country has pledged to have an open internet.
Unreachable from the UK. The USA is not the whole world.
Even if true it is blocked for some in the UK, who cares? Other than reporters, no one needs to read Putin's lies.
Sorry your guy is such a dumbshit and is taking your country into North Korea like dark ages. Maybe you should do something about it, like putting a bullet in the back of his head. Russia has form with revolutions, time for another.
This is not the first time you've said that, and like that time (and any others I haven't noticed), you're wrong. It loads from my connection, through my VPN, and through a couple endpoints I've tried. Some of the endpoints I've tried are in other countries. Just like last time, people in countries I didn't tried verified that it works for them too. If you're intent on lying, you can lie better. Or you could stop, because it's annoying.
-> This is not the first time you've said that
I think this is the first time I have ever mentioned it. If you think I have mentioned it before, please point out where.
Where are you? I am in the UK and it is unreachable at this moment. And this morning. And yesterday. And a few days ago. I rarely checked rt.com but has been unreachable from here for days.
there have been illegal invasions before, but never quite the same media furore as on this occasion. Israel's theft of Palestinian land - no problem, Iran, Libya, Afghanistan also no problem, i won't even feign sarcasm, the explanation is very simple its called double standards.
"Governments limiting access, disinformation, cybercrime, illegal and harmful content..."
Well I suppose Govts limiting disinformation, cybercrime etc could be seen as making the internet less open, but somehow I doubt that's what the State Department meant, nor is it what they said.
I'm not sure I'd want to be a "signee" either - does that mean the agreement has to be tattooed on your body for all to see?
I suppose the usual suspects would be happy to be signatories, though the State Department document is the sort of waffly newspeak feelgood business-drivel best used for wrapping street food of choice.
WTF is it with the Russo / Sino trolls in here, advocating an encryption ban?
We need MORE encryption, end to end. Otherwise, we are not safe to speak our minds or have confidence that we are not being surveilled. Without encryption (and associated AUTHENTICATION), we cannot trust the security of transactions.
Okay, I'm ready to respect that - at the condition that the user does not take it as an excuse to assault, insult and harass another user.
Respect of privacy works both ways, and if you do not respect the individual you're talking to, you have no right to expect anonymity.
It is high time that policing of the Internet happens. I would actually accept a scheme where my posts could be anonymous to users, but targetted to law enforcement if that could cut down on the amount of assholes who think they can insult my mother in any way they see fit without consequence.
Free Speech is not an excuse for gratuitious insults.
-> I would actually accept a scheme where my posts could be anonymous to users, but targetted to law enforcement
Hmm. Very thin end of the wedge. It would only take a bit of thought crime and then you would be in trouble. The police are not the arbiters of morality. Give them a tiny bit of power and they will abuse it. They always have.
In the US we all have freedom of speech and can walk around town with a gun in our pockets, Freedom to carry a gun is not an excuse for gratuitous shots but it does happen occasionally. I agree that Freedom of Speech is a significant factor but we need to accept that Freedom of Anonymous Lies is causing a lot of near misses these days on all sides.
I have confirmed using a vpn to Germany that the site is available from there. But where I am in the UK it is unreachable.
It would appear to be limited to the Three mobile network, but why that is so remains unclear: https://www.ispreview.co.uk/talk/threads/rt-news-inaccessible-on-three-uk.38074/page-2
In my first post on this article I wrote 'The so-called 'free west' has banned access.'
I was wrong. It does appear to be a problem/decision specifically on the 3 mobile network which is preventing me from accessing the site. I can access this
I wish to apologise for jumping in with both feet. I certainly know how to diagnose network access problems and would normally have done this, and been pointing fingers at 3. Instead I wrongly assumed that this was a policy decision somewhere in the UK. It's easy to make a wrong assumption about that, given that RT is now banned by Ofcom, and there was talk of other sorts of internet bans.
But I was wrong in this case. I won't withdraw my comment, I will leave it there for others to see.
"Under this vision, people everywhere will benefit from an Internet that is unifiedunfragmented;"
Editing error? Missing an "and" or was one word supposed to replace the other? They...don't quite mean the same thing.
[the way my brain works, this leapt off the screen and smacked my eyeballs repeatedly; I trust the icon will be appropriate]
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
