The U.S. Governments plans on cybercrime

Obama has come forward with a plan to tighten laws on cybercrime, it's all over the internet. The policy is being sold as

more a set of guiding principles than a binding text, and there are no set deadlines or goals for reaching agreements with other countries.

But on who's agenda? Sure the internet has plenty of criminal activity like the trade of child pornography, rampant malware, or Goldman Sacks defrauding Australian companies of hundreds of million dollars while screwing entire economies. But some of this activity has not been prosecuted in the U.S. and has even been rewarded with massive payouts of taxpayer money. I don't want that kind of justice, thank you.

I don't need secret police interviewing 7th graders trying to find out which terrorist organization they belong to because they posted something on facebook.
I don't need an internet ministry of truth.
I don't need police fighting over which police force gets to steal my money.
I don't need to replace my door every time I flush the toilet.
I don't need Milk Police.
I don't need Ruby Ridge or Waco Texas in my back yard.
I don't need Guantanamo Bay prisons.
I don't need government sanctioned water boarding as a means to solve crime.

Besides, isn't big brother already watching everything I surf and every email I send? One would think that they'd be able to send Seal Team 6 to capture whoever they believed had porn on their computer and dump them into the ocean in short order regardless of how cooperative the foreign government is or is not.

As recent protests swept across the Middle East and North Africa - from Tunisia and Egypt to Libya and Yemen - dissidents used social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to organize anti-government demonstrations. And in some cases, country leaders have tried to stifle the protests by shutting down websites or disrupting Internet traffic. Clinton has been vocal in her opposition to that, and the new policy formalizes those sentiments.

Hold on. I am not sure what in this statement was to be considered cybercrime... What is Hilary in opposition to? That dissidents are using the internet to organize, or that governments are disrupting internet traffic? Because technically organizing a revolution is commonly known as treason whether the internet was helping get the message out or not, and a government trying to regain order by whatever means they deem necessary is sort of like shooting a burglar in your house... But since the U.S. government is, in fact, aiding the revolutions and likely covertly started them through media manipulation suggests that treason is supposed to be legal... Maybe I read that wrong.

"That's one of the things we hope in the long term that will never happen again," Schmidt said.

He agreed it will take time to forge agreements around the globe, particularly with countries that are "not likeminded" and don't share American values of free expression.

Apparently I did not read that wrong, treason is supposed to be legal. But what's this about free expression? If 7th graders are interrogated by the Secret Service over a facebook post I would not be inclined to call that freedom... It would also appear that treason is not legal when it might imply violence against the U.S. regime.

So take your double standards home America. Figure out your own crap before pushing your agenda on the rest of the world. American values would appear to be rewarding crooks and bombing other countries to plunder their natural resources while thinking removing park benches will solve the homeless problem rather than looking into your rampantly out of control unemployment. Maybe it's time the rest of us band together and call in your debt, then you won't have the money to be out on the town picking fights like a drunken sailor.

-DIrtyKID©