Visions of a Freeman -
29 of September of 2013
Academic Media and responsible Internet.
The beginning of a digital democracy.
Take a look at this:
Looks like we have a problem with anonymous accounts, they are very dangerous for security purposes, not only for a country but for the world. As you can see the friends of Twitter... can be severely infected by very dangerous people that can later run away, since it is used anonymously.
Obviously Twitter is no good for security if it can be hijacked by anyone to plan and execute criminal activities without anyone taking the blame or being held responsible. This is a serious issue that puts the entire world security at risk.
That is why I want to write about linking every account in a new social media to a person. You see in Venezuela for example we have the telephone company CANTV, that company can make a social media a lot more secure than Twitter. The reason is because the person in Venezuela would have to go to a Cantv office, identify themselves, get their picture taken and maybe even fingerprints and only then they can receive their authenticated, secure account.
This is very good for security because the accounts of the Cantv social network are no longer anonymous, which makes it a lot harder to use by crime. If any criminal activity is done with an account then someone is responsible for that. This is specially important to protect children, in fact I do not think it is even possible to think about a social network that incorporates children without a non anonymous social network, it would be far to dangerous for them, well not only children, also young and attractive women would be put at great risk with an anonymous network.
Non anonymous networks with user responsibility are also great to stop cyber bullying, which can really save lives and also increase the happiness of young people since they feel more secure.
I already spoke about the need to have an internet social network that sends raw data, which can later be used by software made by students and industry to create a variety of software solutions that also generate jobs and help students learn how to program but apart from the fact that the new social network is bound to a person that has to be made responsible for his actions (which is a great protection for children) I want to write about how to pay for the new social network and how to start it.
It starts at the University, as a university social network, but the identification process is linked to the central databases of Cantv. This is the "Login phase" in which the main interaction with the central identification system is a security interaction. Later more services can be attached to that Login that are not directly linked to Cantv but to a security number which can be used by software to identify a person in online games for example. In this sense the person logs, with his software to Cantv server using the correct login - password combination and the software then asks Cantv what is the gaming code, for example. The software takes that code and uses it to identify the user in the databases of the game, which do not have to be in Cantv.
But the most important reason why we would need a non anonymous network is because it enables Digital Democracy where people can start voting for a wide range of choices, which can be anything from opinion polls to political votes.
The great part is that Cantv is also linked to a telephone number and to other telephone networks. So if an account is hacked it should be easy to establish using a telephone with the appropriate number. If a person gets his telephone stolen then that person can call Cantv and inform it. Cantv also has the distribution map of the IP addresses so it can offer secure IP grounding so that no one else can use any other IP location to hack into a person's account.
For example suppose a person is living in Maracay, Venezuela and is connected to the Mrcy004.Cantv.net server for his internet service. Then the account is bound to that person and also to that server in particular. Suppose the user is a child, it is a little girl that needs obvious protection. The parent decides to call Cantv or go to Cantv to lock the account to the server route. That means that no one can login into the account of that person with another different IP route, even if they have the appropriate login and password. This not only stops any hackers from login in, it also stops the little girl from getting herself in trouble using her account at another place other than her home, supervised by her parents and that is also great for her security. Later Cantv can make it's hardware trace a lot better the IP addresses with the location of people.
This is excellent because a criminal would think twice before trying to use such a service. He would say: "Hmm, if I screw up in this network someone's head is going to roll... I better use some other network to bully, harass & commit crimes".
This kind of system protects the person which now will have a wide range of new options like for example binding his account to a telephone number in which the account can only be used in a given Smartphone for example, I already spoke about IP binding to the house of the person but it can also be bound to the workplace only. It can be bound by server or by the telephone number. If it is by telephone number then there has to be a new machine in Cantv that simply compares the active IP to the telephone line it is using at the moment and returns a 1 if they match. Should not be too hard to create.
All this is excellent because you can have your login and password and even if you are hacked no one else will be able to access your account at any other place. This can also be a future protection for online bank accounts that reduce hacking of accounts.
The user can also have a log at Cantv that logs what was done with his account, what sites were logged with the account and at what time. This is great for supervising children and it is also great to determine if another person is hacking into the account. All this makes the system extremely secure as compared with a dangerous anonymous network such as Twitter.
But the most important feature is the democratic use of the platform, since you simply cannot have democracy over an anonymous system. Each vote has to be for one person and only that person. All this can set a new form of fast online democracy required for the future stability of governments in a transparent system.
Who pays for it?
Your account is your identity, you have the right to have it for free as long as you use it within a reasonable limit that is decided by the possibilities of paying for the services. For example it could be 100 free messages a day, or 1000 like twitter has now.
But some people want to send more messages, they want more services, they even want to send publicity. Those people pay more, of course. They pay more as they use the service beyond the free point. A limit of 100 messages surely would cause people to pay more. They pay but not a lot, only enough to cover the additional expenses that they cause to the server, it's best if the user is informed why they are being charged for more messages and how much the messages really cost to increase the trust that is needed for a system that is then used to vote and to make serious surveys.
Currently Twitter is in an illegal status when it comes to commercial activities since no one can compete with it since it is running on net loss. This is something that can be considered a monopolistic aggression to stop any other competitor and to make matters even worse all pictures in Twitter are their property, which means they can legally sell them invading privacy in a very brutal way and putting people at risk. For example they could make a soft porn compilation of photos from the female users... Law does not prohibit them from doing so.
With a sustainable system that pays for itself in a transparent way there cannot be any dubious, dark sales of user material so it is safer for everyone.
Another service that can be sold is the possibility to send private messages to another person that do not go public for everyone else to see, making it look more like a SMS text message telephone service or a little email. A user can have 100 of those for free and pay for additional plans under a transparent system so democracy is facilitated in society.
With non anonymous social networks or login servers the society can truly begin to hear what the people are wanting. Which opens a new era of digital democracy. Online census for example can be always updated, people in need or homeless people get easily identified and helped. The system has a better idea of it's users and what they want.
It also calls for a more responsible use of the Internet. For example news about death or other inappropriate subjects for children cannot be seen under a child account or an account of an adult that does not want to see violent or pornographic content. People can vote on the type of content they want or they can vote to remove a content they do not like, giving way for a digital, democratic media.
My idea is that in the future this type of direct user interaction will create democratic media.
Democratic media is just like any other media but more ethical and it has a special section, unknown to current media which is the Democratic Space. In that space users can interact with the media to decide what content will be placed there or decide the rules. This is great for Academic Media. It does not have to be all the media, but a part of it.
A very good example for a Democratic Media.
The news is this:
The colored letters mark a point where FoxNews wants to increase the pain of the user for maximum profit.
Just another sick example of a criminal media profiting from horrific deaths trying at the same time to enhance the pain of the user making the user more susceptible to manipulations and bigotry, which is the essence of a slavery media such as the unquestionable FoxNews Seol Media Tyranny.
We start with imaginary rule number 1.
A) Users will have a little button below the news where they can press if they see a news in inappropriate, giving a sub menu of options where one or many options can be selected.
In a different book of rules we set the relative rules:
A1) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Too violent.
A2) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Inappropriate for children.
A3) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Does not benefit me at all.
A4) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Criminal circus of the horrific.
A5) There will be an option in Rule 1 of Stable rules that says: Violates death circus prohibition main directive.
Main Rules again.
B) If a news gets a given number of votes to mark it inappropriate, the news is then subjected to a vote.
In a different book of rules we set the relative rules:
B1) The votes needed to remove a news will be 20% of all the active users in the last month.
B2) A rejected news will count as 1 negative point for the person responsible for the news.
B3) The question would be: Should news like this be published for everyone?
B4) The answers will be multiple choice, 1 or many: a) Yes. b) No. If it is no then the same submenu for point A will be displayed.
Main Rules again.
C) Once a news is voted inadequate by the vote of the users in the automated process it is send to the limit judge (Ethical Analysis division).
In a different book of rules we set the relative rules:
C1) Death Circus News are not allowed in an Academic Media.
C2) Death News can not be used for profit.
C3) Death News must be approved by police forces or Police Academy.
C4) In Death News there is no need to give sadistic details.
C5) Any negative news must have increased ethical observance.
Then the Ethical Analyst shows the infringements it found and sends it to the main Channeler of the news, which in normal media would be a more ethical version of an Editor.
The editor then chooses to remove the news.
The editor sees where things went wrong and proceeds to study the book of relative rules for publicising news, with the help of a democratic process to avoid such news in the future by filtering out in the pre-publishing phase and previous academic internal vote of a news, before it gets published to the general public.
As you can see there can only be one vote per person, that is why a non anonymous system is required.
Twitter is a very serious security risk to the world.
Not only does it not have a link to the responsibility of people that use it, but as you saw in the CNN news it is used by the most dangerous of criminals as a working tool.
A monopolistic unfair system that drowns it's competition, that is heavily spied upon by the United States Government which is illegal in any other country because it violates the International Law of Sovereignty that is also a great tool to plan and execute terrorist acts by anonymous people...
All this to show that a non anonymous, law abiding Democratic System is safer not only for a given country but for the world community. Twitter represents a great tool for anonymous terrorists world wide and that is a serious danger that has to be considered by serious law enforcement agencies. We cannot have anyone, anywhere, using Twitter anonymously to plan terror attacks, that is why I proposed the Democratic Data Individualist Social Network Model.
Besides in the one-per-person non anonymous system not only the youth is far safer but each user is one person. That avoids criminal schemes like the kind Facebook likes to do (can't prove it but it is extremely easy for them to do) which creates imaginary users that do not exist to sell more publicity or their users do it... That cannot be good not even for businesses since they are being basically ripped off out of their money. On the other hand if every user had only one account then the marketing value of the social network is not only greatly increased, it is also far more reliable, for publicity, for children supervision, for census and for Digital Democracy.
We all win with a RESPONSIBLE INTERNET.
Responsible Internet means that someone is responsible for what is done, as opposed to the Twitter model where anonymous access makes a great tool for extremely dangerous criminals, as kindly indicated by criminal and terrorist CNN.
What's up with CNN publishing this?:
And then this:
Obviously something must be done to STOP anonymous terrorists from using anonymous accounts on irresponsible Social Networks to terrorize and kill...
That is why we urgently need: Academic Media and Responsible Internet.
It's the best thing that can happen to all we the honest people that do not want to profit from Crime or Terrorism and want respect for Human Rights.