Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (103671)	11/12/2013 1:58:12 PM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217750

Between gold and bitcoin we know which one is safe, as in shall be around, even as both may suffer regulatory this and capital control that. Between fiat monies and gold we know which one shall stick around, even though both are items of faith. Trying to reinvent money is the first sign of bubble, and as such bubble inflates it gives good temperature-read on the state of bubbledom. The bitcoin bubble reflection on the global political tyranny / planetary truth suppression / universal fiat money inflation should have been anticipated as an add-on to the ridiculously proportion-ed financial derivatives bubble ... Just another financial technology (know-how) enhanced contraption to soak up gushing liquidity, and yes, the folks closest to the spigot benefits most, as all times past. Without checking I guess either there is already a bitcoin thread on this SI or soon shall be. What fun.

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (103671)	11/12/2013 11:02:30 PM
From: elmatador	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 217750

Brazil going too far on internet security We rent balls to the world, MQ. Rousseff’s web protectionism is bad for her country Throughout the current controversy over US snooping on foreign powers, much of the focus has been on the damage done to relations between America and Europe. The revelation, in particular, that the US tapped German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s mobile phone has triggered debate in the EU about whether it needs tough new data protection laws. But the one country that may influence how this controversy develops more than any other is Brazil. President Dilma Rousseff has expressed fury at the revelations of US spying. Consequently, her government has hit back with an extensive set of measures aimed at protecting Brazilians from what it regards as an out-of-control US surveillance machine. Brazil has published ambitious plans to promote its own networking technology. It intends to set up its own secure national email service. Now it is unveiling legislation that would require all online information concerning Brazilians to be stored physically in Brazil. This last measure would have big implications. It would require US internet companies operating in Brazil to duplicate infrastructure that they already possess offshore, setting up huge and costly data centres inside the country. This would inevitably leave those internet companies wondering whether they should restrict their operations in Brazil. That would be bad for Brazilian competitiveness and damaging for its tech sector. It would also be bad for global internet freedom. The world is divided into those states led by the US, which are champions of a free- flowing internet; and those – such as China, Russia and Iran – that maintain national intranets to help secure political control. Brazil is one of a group of countries – alongside Turkey, India and Indonesia – that have wavered over which path to take. If Brazil, whose population is the world’s second-largest user of Facebook, becomes a standard-bearer of internet protectionism, others will follow. The US has nobody but itself to blame for the angry Brazilian reaction to snooping by American spies. The president of Brazil is right to feel seriously aggrieved by evidence that the US has been tapping into her internal government communications. But Brazil’s mission to protect its citizens’ personal data by means of extensive data firewalls is flawed. It is bad for Brazil, which would suffer economically. And it is bad for the worldwide web, which risks entering an era of fragmentation and regulation. Ms Rousseff needs to think again. RELATED TOPICS United States of America, European Union