Phone networks are supposed to be "neutral", so wouldn't filtering traffic violate that? Now, that's a moot point since nowadays, all traffic (either voice or data) is monitored. And many of this is unencrypted, so it's even easier to monitor (example: emails. See Carlson Tucker allegations regarding the NSA and his emails).
Another issue is that the telco/IT/internet has become too centralized and with few actors. It doesn't help that there's a push to move things to the "cloud" and use Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). For example, if you want Office, you are pushed heavily into Microsoft 365, a subscription service (luckily, there are free alternatives like Libre Office. Sure, power users will find those lacking, but for simple text writing & editing, it's more than enough). For storing stuff like photos, music and documents, you are pushed into cloud storage services. This makes you even more dependent on the internet.
Then, if one would like to cause a ruckus, one can target DNS servers, or content delivery networks (CDN). Without DNS, you wouldn't be able to access websites easily.
(DNS servers act as a directory to put it simply. Network devices do not understand [for example] substack.com; they need what's is called an IP address. A DNS server tells your device the IP address of substack.com and after that, it can establish a connection).
"if you really need to, you push the carriers and ISP’s to only accept “secure” connecting protocols and voila, you mop up the rest".
Actually, it's easier to lock-down end devices and run only "approved" applications. Apps like Telegram and Signal would get banned, citing some bogus "National Security" grounds.
Locking down smart phones is easier. On the other hand, in computers and laptops one can still go the Linux route.
Finally, I read some highlights from the WEF Cyber Polygon July 9 2021 exercise. The ones that caught my attention were:
- The need to disrupt mis/disinformation sites internet sites that threaten Pandemic recovery.
Sites like this one might become a target (or they might ask the owners to de-platform the likes of Gato, Alex Berenson, and all those who question the official narrative).
- The need for adopting Trusted ID single sign-on for accessing the internet public and private websites.
This one doesn't need much explanation. You would have to use an ID to access the internet; obviously, that ID would be linked to you.
Phone networks are supposed to be "neutral", so wouldn't filtering traffic violate that? Now, that's a moot point since nowadays, all traffic (either voice or data) is monitored. And many of this is unencrypted, so it's even easier to monitor (example: emails. See Carlson Tucker allegations regarding the NSA and his emails).
Another issue is that the telco/IT/internet has become too centralized and with few actors. It doesn't help that there's a push to move things to the "cloud" and use Software-as-a-Service (SaaS). For example, if you want Office, you are pushed heavily into Microsoft 365, a subscription service (luckily, there are free alternatives like Libre Office. Sure, power users will find those lacking, but for simple text writing & editing, it's more than enough). For storing stuff like photos, music and documents, you are pushed into cloud storage services. This makes you even more dependent on the internet.
Then, if one would like to cause a ruckus, one can target DNS servers, or content delivery networks (CDN). Without DNS, you wouldn't be able to access websites easily.
(DNS servers act as a directory to put it simply. Network devices do not understand [for example] substack.com; they need what's is called an IP address. A DNS server tells your device the IP address of substack.com and after that, it can establish a connection).
"if you really need to, you push the carriers and ISP’s to only accept “secure” connecting protocols and voila, you mop up the rest".
Actually, it's easier to lock-down end devices and run only "approved" applications. Apps like Telegram and Signal would get banned, citing some bogus "National Security" grounds.
Locking down smart phones is easier. On the other hand, in computers and laptops one can still go the Linux route.
Finally, I read some highlights from the WEF Cyber Polygon July 9 2021 exercise. The ones that caught my attention were:
- The need to disrupt mis/disinformation sites internet sites that threaten Pandemic recovery.
Sites like this one might become a target (or they might ask the owners to de-platform the likes of Gato, Alex Berenson, and all those who question the official narrative).
- The need for adopting Trusted ID single sign-on for accessing the internet public and private websites.
This one doesn't need much explanation. You would have to use an ID to access the internet; obviously, that ID would be linked to you.
such an odd coincidence that none of these big WEF ideas ever seems to favor privacy, personal choice, free speech, or individual agency.
they really do seem to think they can make the earth into their own little ant farm.
it's more than a little scary how rapidly their slogans find themselves on the lips of so many western leaders.
Well, it looks like the European Commission is already working in digital IDs:
https://twitter.com/EU_Commission/status/1400433724857229315