Gabriel Tane's Favorites Of The Week: Censorship At Home And Abroad
from the favorites-of-the-week dept
This week's list of "favorite" posts of the week is handed off to Gabriel TaneFriends! Countrymen! Techdirt-ians! Lend me your... eyes! It's my turn to stroke my ego and pretend that anyone cares to hear what I have to say about issues. But, if you're still reading (and keep on reading), then I'll assume you're at least interested. So, read on and thanks for your attention.
First up, we'll start with a whole slew of related articles that show how the DHS/ICE domain seizures have some serious questions that need some answers. This week, we've seen stories that discuss what does the situation mean to our international relations. The question of jurisdiction has been batted around in the comments as a matter of technicality, but not a lot was said about how far-reaching of an effect this may have if other countries decide they don't like how we seem to be rather bully-ish about how our laws are more important than others'. I don't know the answer to that question, but since our actions so far have been to pull our plug out and thumb our noses, I don't think I want to know the effect.
Further, we've seen where the technical understanding and legality have been called into question by more than just bloggers and interested lawyers. Now, have the questions been raised in such a way that will force the hand of DHS/ICE? Probably not; but the fact that so many people are raising their eyebrows about it means there is something going on that needs to be looked at. And it will, sooner than later I hope.
Second, I also got quite interested in the patent-vs-innovation article that was posted. It seems that the status-quo is being questioned even by those "inside" the system. In a very broad way, I wonder how long until actual common sense is going to win over the juggernaut of established bureaucracy. Hmm...
Third, I was very interested to hear about the situation in Egypt. Actually, I heard about it here first. I didn't follow it completely and thoroughly, but I did have a face-palm moment at this story about the timing of American legislation that people said included an "internet kill switch." I was worried about someone posting comments from a tin-foil fort about how Egypt was some kind of warning about what would happen if the US increased its censorship... and here comes the government showing how such a claim wouldn't be too far of a stretch. sigh. At least China was worried about the implications.
Further on the face-palm front... I was glad to see the TSA getting a clue with new scanners that don't show you naked, and realizing the people who write the paychecks are not happy with their actions -- and not surprised to see them completely ignore the need for effective screening that actually does something other than justify a paycheck.
Fourth and finally, ain't technology grand!? Seeing Bryant Gumbel and Katie Couric discover the internet was fun. Now, much like the rest of you, I found this to be an amusing view on how technology has grown and how silly we see ourselves then, 20+ years later. I was, again like most of you, sadly not surprised when a major news corp followed this up by completely overreacting to the situation, firing the person responsible and, thus, creating the much-loved Streisand-effect. I wonder how long it's going to take before the reality of the internet's openness and, well, immortality sinks in to the people who think they can just wish information away.
There were so many fun stories this week, I know I didn't get them all covered. I think I covered the ones that echo strongest with me: the fact that our government seems to want to censor what's on the internet (arguably, at the beck and call of the entertainment industry) while another country (our ally?) faces some very serious consequences for that very action.
I think we've seen the start of a trend towards people wanting real answers to what's going on. I know that as I read the comments from both sides (at least, those on either side that choose to provide data), I learn more and more about how these things do and should work. For that, I would like to take a purely-selfish moment and thank all the commenters -- regulars, ACs, insiders and outsiders -- for helping me broaden my knowledge about the world around me.
And, of course, I do so love to see how far technology has come in the last few years... and if anyone wants some authentic AOL coasters, let me know ;).
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, egypt, favorites, homeland security
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Also, Kool-Aid is the stuff of legends. Do not diss the Kool-Aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The sad thing is that the reference isn't even correct. Jim Jones and Co. drank Flavor Aid, not Kool Aid.
/sadface
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I lubs you Rose
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBeUGqeYsQg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I lubs you Rose
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I admit, I am a fanboi of a large chunk of what TechDirt publishes. The reason being, IP is one of my interests.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A large chunk is not everything. What about everything other than the large chunk? Why not really work for "change in the rela world" that moves things closer to you being a fanboi of all of techdirt?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good riddance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good riddance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Good riddance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Good riddance
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
This about this for a second... who is going to be more effective at working change? A person who feels something is wrong in the world and says to their reps "Hey, let's stop this! Its bad!". Or a person who discusses the issues with others, gains points of views they never had, finds new facets to research on, and then says to their reps "Hey, let's stop this! Its bad because..."
Or do you just dislike us here because we believe things differently than you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That is sort of self-defeating at a certain point, especially if you are shouting down anyone who doesn't agree with you. That sort of grouping is similar to the Republican and Democratic parties, with the Tea Party yahoos and the Libertarian Luddites tossed in the middle. At the end of the day, you are picking sides, and surrounding yourself with people who tell you that you are right. That doesn't open your mind, it closes it further.
I think that sites like Techdirt, which encourage "shouting down the opposition" are a negative, and a dead end for progress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I respect posts that, as Gabriel noted above, give explanations for their shouting (or simple disagreement).
The "kool-aid drinkers" and "freetards" insults add nothing, much like the "corporate shill" epithets. Really, such things diminish anything else the poster might've said. When you're reduced to insults, it indicates you have no further legitimate argument.
Things written about and discussed here at TD obviously invoke some heated opinion and often result in more information to chew on. That's what makes the place interesting and worthwhile to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So who's shouting down the opposition? Regulars here the calmly and rationally state their cases and provide supporting info, or the 'opposition' who reply with "LOL U R Dumb"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What you seem to miss is that from over here, Mike Masnick does the same thing. He is very good at leaving out relevant facts, or sub-setting data, or setting things up in a manner that supports his view and disguises or blocks opposing views.
When you pick and choose your "facts", or what you build "facts" out of opinions (like the USPTO willy nilly approving patents claim), you don't get to claim the high moral ground.
What is key here is that you don't move forward if you don't accept that the other side has either some good ideas or some logic in their stands. Some of what is said on TD is very informative and very forward thinking. Some of it is wishful thinking. Where it becomes an issue is when the wishful thinking is treated as a "fact" and things are built up from there. My biggest disagreements with people where are the ones who aren't looking at the basis of many of the stories posted here, and are accepting as fact what is not really proven.
It is incredibly hard to have a discussion of the facts when the facts themselves are in question.
So who's shouting down the opposition?
Anyone ever call you a troll on here, or an idiot? Do people ignore your points and just say "you don't know anything at all"? Rational discussion doesn't start with name calling. There are plenty of children on here that come to pick a fight, not to discuss points. They flame, and they get flamed back.
At the end of the day, any dissenting views on TD are quickly attacked not on logic, but usually on attacking the person, their writing style, whatever you like. That is the sign of closed minds, and that does nothing to advance your cause.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find this statement odd, like we're reading totally different websites. Maybe, as a regular reader of several years, I've learned to filter out the namecalling flamewars or something.
I've seen some really great, informative, and civil discussions here at TD, discussions that have expanded my understanding in both directions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't disagree with you. But what I was talking about is that the only people who are 'shouted down' are the ones who disagree with a stance, call those that do "stupid" or "freetards" etc, and don't actually challenge the facts, only point and laugh at the people using the facts.
Yes. One goes by the name Anonymous (not 'anonymous coward'), and the other (on some rare occasions when he's in a bad mood) Average Joe. There's also Darryl, but I haven't seen him around much anymore (vacation maybe). The Anti-Mike seems to still be rolling around under the Anonymous Coward moniker and is notorious for attacking Mike himself and not so much the statements Mike makes.
citation or bullshit. I don't usually resort to foul language, but you just included me in that. And it's flat-out wrong
If you actually read my previous comments, you'd know that logic is one of my big things. If someone comes in with fallacious arguments, yes, I point that out and challenge them to make legitimate arguments. The only one's I've attacked in the past are Anonymous (mainly because he's proven beyond all doubt that he refuses to engage in honest debate) and RJR (for the same reason). I'm all for logical arguments, but when the other side fails to play nice, I'll damned sure call them out on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike's own best quote: "Oh, grow up".
'nuff said.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry, should I have specified that by "context", I meant "the actual information pertaining to the conversation" and not just "a small out-of-context snippet that supports my side"? My bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
Its is called a true democratic republic and it is evolving as we speak.
"It's my turn to stroke my ego and pretend that anyone cares to hear what I have to say about issues."
I don't care, but great post none the less ... ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
Rather than working to get the right people running the show, they elect idiots through incredibly partisan politics, and then nit-pick at the work of their underlings.
Where this is heading is paralysis, where nobody in power dares to take a decision for fear of offending some idiot with a keyboard and a free wordpress account.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
We do have the right to stick our noses into EVERYTHING the government does. They "represent" us, they do not rule us. That is the difference between a republic and an empire.
When wrongs and injustices are done we most certainly do have a right, a moral, and a societal obligation, to do the right thing. Most people are apathetic and forget this.
It all goes back to a quote you may have heard before. "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing" Edmund Burke.
So I say for ever and for all time, we should all stick our noses into the affairs of government, and any person or corporation living off the government dole.
"Where this is heading is paralysis, where nobody in power dares to take a decision for fear of offending some idiot with a keyboard and a free wordpress account."
I will quote Thoreau, Jefferson, and-or Paine here, "That government is best which governs least". Allowing individuals or corporations to lobby for, and dictate every aspect of daily life, through purchased laws, is not life. It is slavery, an affront to dignity, and also to liberty.
Forcing rulers and the ruling class to think their actions through because they are being judged, weighed, and measured at all times is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
The enemy of progress is fear. When you create fear, you slow progress. It's why FUD is the common weapon of choice these days online. By creating fear, your create uncertainty, you create pause. Even when people know they are right, they are stopped by the fear of being wrong. Public officials have it worse, because they know that around every corner is some jackwagon with a cellphone camera ready to take something out of context, so they can get their 15 minutes of youtube fame.
It's pretty sad.
"hat government is best which governs least" - that tends to sound like a call to anarchy, the absence of government. Stay out of everything, all the time. It's actually the current hot topic, the thing that the FUD-sters love, like this group:
http://www.nofoodtaxes.com/
Watch the commercial. They can't help but say the government needs to stay out of their lives. It's an appeal to fear, "oh no, the govenment is telling us what to do".
If you fall for it, well, shame on you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
There is currently no clear evidence that this is the case..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
"I think that public officials are so scared to offend anyone, to use a wrong "work"=(WORD) in a report, literally to move forward that they would rather stand pat."
Politicians frozen in their tracks and not over reaching is a good thing.
If you want me to quote historical references where over reaching government causes failure I will give you over 3,000 references. Country's from 2500 years ago, until today, all repeat the same pattern. Build it, regulatory capture and financial sharing, failure.
"The enemy of progress is fear."
Agreed
"Public officials have it worse, because they know that around every corner is some jackwagon with a cellphone camera ready to take something out of context, so they can get their 15 minutes of youtube fame."
To bad. If they are public officials, I say get over it, they are now the new Britney spears, with everything they say or do being monitored by the public and there forever. They choose this life, let them live it in the spot light.
""that government is best which governs least" that tends to sound like a call to anarchy, the absence of government."
Oh yeah its crazy talk ... It is not anarchy, its a balance. A balance between government intervention and peoples right to live their lives.
"http://www.nofoodtaxes.com/"
You are supporting the rights of a lobby group for the corn syrup industry .... LOL ... to funny ...
If people believe the ad, I say let them. Its evolution in action.
The end ....
This quote is from torrentfreak today. And so you know he reworked a couple lines from Jew in Germany circa WW II.
"First they came for the Napsters, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a Napster. Then they came for the Torrents, and I didn’t speak out because I didn’t use Torrents. Then they came for the file-sharers, and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a file-sharer"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
And the enemy of progress is the fear of change. Fear itself has been a fuel of progress throughout history... look how the fear of death and disease has worked our for the health industry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
No, that isn't the point? Why does everything have to end up as a bizarre absolute? Are you unable to understand the idea of a middle ground, compared to the two extremes?
What happens as more people come in to look at things, someone is bound to find something they don't like, real or imagined. They use to refer to those people as crackpots, local cranks, whatever. Now they have a camera and a youtube account, and they think they can change the world. All it does is stop progress.
You want to build a new sidewalk? Some crank will be on there about damage to their grass, or how concrete ruins the environment, or how the birds in the trees will be effected by the trucks on the street. These were people who would stand up in city council meetings, say their piece, and be overruled for just being the cranks they are.
Now, they put it on youtube, make a blog, tweet, whatever, and make a few other people think they are right (even when they are wrong) and the whole process goes to crap.
Stop your city truck to get gas, and some citizen notices that you take a few minutes to get a coffee. They film it and put it on youtube as "city workers take extra coffee breaks", not realizing that perhaps when his break was on before, he was working and couldn't stop. What does it do? It encourages the worker to take his coffee break in the middle of work, and as a result take longer to complete his job. The observing became a hinderance.
The idea in the end is to be observant, to raise the flag when something is really wrong. But at the same time, most people don't have scale (as you have shown with your bizarre absolute argument above), and as a result, they feel they need to report everything all the time. It isn't beneficial.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
how is it not coddling the government when someone says "stop asking all those questions! the government is afraid of doing anything for fear of someone not liking it!"
Good analogy, actually. But let me ask you this... if the majority want a sidewalk and a few don't... should that few just shut up and take the sidewalk? How is their opinion about grass vs concrete less valid just because they're the minority? And are all minority dissenters "crackpots" who should be dismissed? I don't think you believe that, so why bring it here? Are you saying that we're crackpots who should be dismissed?
No... that's the sensationalist media making a hindrance... the observation and posting didn't. And I think you're the one taking things to an extreme with this one. Give me an example where someone made a singular observation that lead to such a hindrance that didn't turn out to be the tip of a bigger iceberg? And if you want to stay on this channel, how about we flip it around? What if that coffee break observation lead to an investigation that revealed that these truck drivers really were 'wasting time' or otherwise costing taxpayers more money? Should it all have just stayed quiet and we all just keep paying because the alternative is a hindrance? What about the later result of a more efficient system with proper oversight?
Based in who's definition of "really wrong"? In my opinion*, the war is really wrong, the treatment of Manning is wrong, but I don't really care as much about the healthcare reform. My matter of scale tells me that the healthcare reform can go leap so long as we have other things more important to work on. So who's to say which of my opinions I should engage in discussion and become active over? Oh, that's right... it would be me.
And I'm going to disagree with you on what is beneficial in full disclosure. I think that stopping any of that information is wrong, and it's up to us (as decision makers) to filter the data that is pertinent to us. I'll show you everything... it's up to you to decide which bits are most important to you.
*Everyone please note: my points of opinion here are for illustrative purposes... I will not engage in discussion on those particular points in this thread. Please don't attempt to argue me on those. Thank you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
Now, they put it on youtube, make a blog, tweet, whatever, and make a few other people think they are right (even when they are wrong) and the whole process goes to crap."
Yes, because somehow you, or some judge, is the only one capable of logically evaluating his sidewalk position and everyone else is not and so everyone else will illogically believe him and that will cause everyone to vote for politicians that will make unreasonable decisions. How condescendingly arrogant. and you accuse others of using fear mongering to promote extreme positions and not being able to understand the idea of a middle ground, just look in the mirror your hypocrite.
Also, you should make yourself familiar with the middle ground fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
And that's exactly what is happening. The only reason ppl can't lower the flag is that government is doing that much wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
This sounds like a bunch of FUD to me.
"When you create fear, you slow progress."
So why are you trying to down progress by attempting to create all of this unsubstantiated fear.
"It's why FUD is the common weapon of choice these days online."
The common choice by people like you. Heck, the IP maximists and the mainstream media spreads more FUD than anyone.
"CD Players are going to kill the music industry"
"If copy protection laws don't last 95+ years, musicians will starve"
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12204511290/why-won-t-universal-music-let-you-s ee-the-20-20-report-from-1980-about-how-the-music-industry-is-dying.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com /articles/20100624/1640199954.shtml
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110113/14494112661/techno- panics-forty-years-ago-narrated-orson-welles.shtml
etc...
give me a break.
The mainstream media is perfectly capable of fear mongering without the Internet and the only one fear mongering here is people like you. Our fears, on the other hand, are already a reality and their consequences are already a reality (ie: 95+ year copy protection laws with continuous extensions and the devastation that does to the public domain).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
Yeah, umm... Try reading it, sometime. It's taxes on things like soda and sugary beverages. Things that are already taxed in Ohio, where I live. The taxes are 'supposedly' meant to push people away from consuming such things, but really are about lining the coffers. These sorts of 'sin taxes' never really do what they say they will in the majority.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
The comment you just made is exactly why I oppose the IP maximalist agenda. At the end of the day, it sees nothing, including constitutional principle, that should stand in the way of profit. I am a business person myself and I am not opposed to profit - yours or mine. I am opposed to trying to use the law in ways which undermine our country's freedom.
And for the record, while you or some of your other AC colleagues here seem to think that TD is populated by pirate kiddies, for me this is not a piracy issue. I'm not much into music. I don't have an MP player and I rarely watch movies at home.
In other words, I'm not a downloader looking for cover.
I am here because I think your agenda is wrong for our country. If that is what you mean by "stick their nose into everything", then Guilty As Charged.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
I'm all for profits and sensible business strategies. Not a pirate either. But I am also fiercely against laws that protect visionless enterprise via curtailment or disregard of citizens' rights. This scares the hell out of me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
It isn't an agenda. You can check out anything you want, just don't get in the way of it actually getting done. The problem I see is that so many people are busy playing private detective and youtube journalist that the very people we count on to do the jobs that need doing every day are spending more and more time on "being exactly right to avoid problems" and less and less time on actually getting the job done.
If you want to run your city, your country, the world, then get into politics yourself. It is as easy as pie to stand out on the outside and launch verbal (or video) bombs into the fray, but it's different when you actually take responsibility and do something about it. If you want to change the system, get involved.
if you just want to be meddlesome and tell other people what to do, keep up the good work. You are well on your way to "hey you kids, get off my lawn" without even realizing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
If there are more crackpots who are now more visible/vocal that will call out against everything that the doers do, they'd still be the minority since the number of "regular people" will be increased well. Thus, the ones who are not in agreement with the majority will still be out-voted and out-voiced. but then again, just because these 'crackpots' don't agree with the majority does not mean that their voice should not be heard.
Or do you feel that dissenting opinion should be repressed? It almost sounds that way.
Again, why are these two things mutually exclusive? You seem to think that just because I talk about issues online that I'm not also writing letters to my representatives and supporting movements financially & with man-hours.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
... sounds that way???
It is that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
The current round of activity:
-- COICA
-- ACTA
-- TPP
Further, all you have to do is read the boasts of individuals posting on this site about coming changes in law to allow monitoring and control of internet activity. Some of these claims made right here within the past few days.
If you want to hear congressional staff members discuss the IP issues which are being considered in Washington during this legislative session. It is a revealing conversation (a video recording done about 3 weeks ago) focused largely on how to tighten IP laws further. You will note that 4 out of the 5 panelists are from the state of California. It's a simple reflection of the entertainment industry lobby from that state.
So you say there is "no agenda". Does the industry have lobbyists? Have you ever met a lobbyist without an agenda?.
Lest you think that I don't know how legislative agendas are pursued, let me just say that, although I am not a professional lobbyist, I have flown to DC, and stood in the offices of my state's elected delegation to both the House and Senate and spoken with them myself. I know first hand that lobbying works. Sorry. This argument is worthless.
Lawmakers need to get it right, and they had better get it right the first time, since the US has a terrible record at all levels of government with respect to evaluating and fixing laws that subsequently are found to have unintended and unfortunate consequences.
---> Bad law is worse than no law at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
We have the right to stick our noses into what the government does because we pay taxes.
"Where this is heading is paralysis, where nobody in power dares to take a decision for fear of offending some idiot with a keyboard and a free wordpress account."
What we had before was plutocracy, where everything the government does (ie: 95+ year copy protection laws) was to serve big corporations. Hopefully now we will move in the direction of destroying such plutocracy.
and just because laws aren't moving as quickly in the direction that you would like them to move doesn't mean there is paralysis.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
Even when it comes to questions that politicians are asked on the mainstream media, politicians have always been hesitant to take a stance. How many presidential (and political) debates have you seen in the past? Politicians dodging questions with non - answers has probably been around since (and before) the printing press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
Also, why doesn't this apply to you as a commenter on this blog? If you really don't like where this is heading, why are you contributing to it by commenting and visiting such blogs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who would have thought being able to talk to anyone anytime would cause this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/02/super-bowl-seizures
Of course, all the tech geeks and freetards here, none of whom are lawyers, will stomp their feet, plug their ears, and cover their eyes to try and pretend reality doesn't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is political speak with no basis in reality or law.
Please play or try again after the superbowl commercials tomorrow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Like if the cops seized a getaway car. It's irrelevant who owns the car, or if the driver is the actual bank robber, an accomplice, or just a buddy doing a favor. What's relevant is whether the property has a substantial connection to the commission of the crime (with an exception for the "innocent owner").
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Like, the decorative numbers on someone's postal box, or maybe beside their front door.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Than why are domain names worth anything at all? Why should you care?"
Good question.
When I say "Seize the address number", I don't mean just the numbers you stuck on your mail box, but the ability to put up new ones that say the same number, as well.
That is: If I live at 10 Maine Drive, and my address number is seized, I could put up 11, or 1, or 389472349, but not 10.
The damage that it does to me can be huge. For an ordinary person, he has to update all his less-than-daily contacts and tell them he now lives at Y, not X, but his house is in the same physical location. And it's still a huge bother to him.
Imagine you're running a business out of your house though. Although you probably have a sign up, which greatly mitigates the problem, and heck, most of your customers probably know the sign more than the address anyhow. But you can't do that on the internet.
So imagine a brick and mortar which suddenly changes address numbers, and whose customers find it by looking for the address number. Like, say, a discrete plastic surgery business.
Overnight, you go from having so many customers per day, to none. Because they can't find your business. You still have your reputation, but when that customer from last year recommends you to her neighbour, her neighbour can't find your address.
You have to start from nearly the beginning again with building up clientele. And hey, someone remind me what the chance of failure within a year is for a new business as opposed to a business that's been around for a couple of years? Around 60-70% higher, isn't it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Think about whichever internet radio service you use.
Was it pandora? That's the first result google finds.
So old customers who are familiar with you are still re-routed to competitors, nice to know.
And then, we also have to consider page rank. All the old links, and all the google search engine preference goes to "10 maine drive", not to your new address. Gonna be hard to get up there in google results even with your own name if your old one is taken away, eh? You even have to compete with your old name, which points only to a takedown notice.
So google won't find you, but it will find competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's rich coming from a shilltard constantly trying to convice himself that the seizures will stop piracy. Keep dreaming.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So... who is refusing reality here?
So let's look at the score...
1)ad hominim attacks irrelevant to the conversation
2)no facts or figures to back it up
3)pure straight-from-the-source hypocrisy
Congrats Anon... HAT-TRICK!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Of course all the lawyers and corporate apologists here (none of whom understand the implications of the technology) will stomp their feet and plug their ears and pretend that reality (mathematical, physical and economic laws) can be held back by the laws of man.
Cnut thou should be living at this hour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes, that's for the slow learners.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm afraid of lending my eyes to you for fear of not being able to reattach them again after I get them back.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the real point here?
The bottom line is no one company, country, industry, fill in the blank, controls the net. This seems to be the biggest denial of all time. On one hand you have the US/ICE trying their hardest to earn their payola from big media, on the other hand is the reality that the net is owned by all users. Why is so hard to undertand? No amount of attempted censorship is going to even put a dent in this, but apparently the perception of control is the end goal.
I dunno, I just moved my biz to a neutral place and will move on without the worries of US censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]