Three Headlines About The US Government And The Internet
from the read-'em-and-weep dept
Paul Keating points us to an amusing (if somewhat disturbing) juxtaposition of three headlines -- one after the other -- on the CircleID website:
- US Government Domain Seizure Results in Unintended Shutdown of Thousands of Websites
- Homeland Security Department Seeks Boost in Cybersecurity Funding, $936 Million for Fiscal 2012
- Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Vows $25 Million for Internet Freedom Agenda
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: freedom, government, headlines, internet
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Unfortunately it seems the priorities are rather clear at this point...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
...I think that sums it all up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You are so correct. So lets "[insert 'a' cause here]" in this case.
But ... But ... [the record labels and movie studios will loose money and will not be able to use accountants to steal from artists].
Wait, we can not sell that one, it is the truth...
But ... But ... [Everyone on earth is employed by the content industry]
Wait, that one doesn't work either, its only 80 percent of the world thats employed by us /sarc...
But ... But ... [The people infringing are costing the artists the money that we will never pay them]
Wait, we cant tell the world we don't pay our artists ...
What do we have left? Oh yeah ...
But ... But ... [ Kiddie porn ]
Yeah, that one works really well, we do not need to prove a thing, just accuse people of it. Lets use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cyber
(See also information super highway)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cyber
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cyber
If only because I frequently had to walk to the library back then. :P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was that Ben Franklin quote again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It's this-
http://www.despair.com/priorities.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i think some important document in history had said something to enable the people to remove such parts of government
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Juxtaposition - wow Mike, you are working the anti-government rhetoric to the boiling point this week, aren't you?
Funny: Cyber security, law enforcement, and freedom are not opposites of each other. Rather, they are complimentary. None of them are absolutes, not even freedom.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
“Liberty and security. Transparency and confidentiality. Freedom of expression and tolerance. There are times when these principles will raise tensions and pose challenges, but we do not have to choose among them. And we shouldn’t. Together they comprise the foundation of a free and open internet.”
(((Who the heck wrote that amazing paragraph?! I’d like to shake that guy’s hand! He’s found some incredible diplomatic rhetorical middle-ground between honesty and dishonesty. It’s like a marriage which is firmly founded on a “challenging tension” of chastity and adultery. And, well, to tell the truth, that’s been known to work out — somehow. I mean — what else can she possibly say? Think about it.)))
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
sure, if done Properly. which the US government kinda fails at on a regular basis. (actually, the US is just the most obvious offender in this regard.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Coming to a city near near you, eventually.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Now that the FCC locks the public out of most public airwave use (only allowing big corporations to use such spectra and limiting Wifi spectra so that it can only transport info a short distance) and the government grants big corporations monopolies over cablco infrastructure use to monopolists that lock out opinions they don't like, outside the Internet censorship is a reality. Just look around. The mainstream media is entirely one sided in favor of IP and hardly any criticisms are allowed on the mainstream media, despite the fact that the current laws are completely indefensible in the face of criticism.
For example see
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20101005/12204511290/why-won-t-universal-music-let-you-see-t he-20-20-report-from-1980-about-how-the-music-industry-is-dying.shtml
and there are many more examples of this nonsense. The mainstream media tries to fearmonger everyone into supporting a position that's completely indefensible in the face of criticism yet criticism is not permitted. Censorship is real.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100727/10432810380.shtml
Yet IP maximists are notoriously afraid to even debate critics because they know they will look bad. People like Mike Masnick (and others) would be more than happy to go on a television news show and debate the issue (someone challenged me on this in one post a long time ago and so I simply asked Mike if he would and he said yes. I'm not gonna look for the post because I know I can ask Mike the question again and he'll give the same answer) and those who criticize IP are often more than happy to publicly debate those who favor it, but the mainstream media would never put someone like MM on a news or other show to debate the issue because they know he would completely humiliate them.
Again, censorship is real, and it's the governments fault that big corporations control the media distribution channels (outside the Internet) and use that control to censor arguments, facts, news, and opinions they don't like. The government and the corporate complex do this on purpose and it's not too far fetched to assume that they want to censor the Internet from such dissenting views as well, just like they did to so much media outside the Internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It is mostly because those who support patents (not maximalists... just support patents) understand that this system is complex, and the interactions between patents, research, and plenty of other things is complex to explain. Where as the other side (the Masnick types) can come on and spew "innovation! New Products! Patent Thicket!" and show patents off in a bad light, without addressing the core issues.
It wouldn't be a debate, because the patent abolishonists would not debate the full implications over time, only the short term gain in "more stuff for you now!".
[ 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 ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because only IP maximists are smart enough to sufficiently understand the issue, the public is not. and exposing the public to IP criticisms and debate over the matter will confuse the dumb public who is too stupid to understand the issue as well as IP maximists are.
How condescending and arrogant. Sorry, I do not buy the argument that the public is dumber than IP maximists and are unable to evaluate both sides as reasonably as IP maximists.
"It wouldn't be a debate, because the patent abolishonists would not debate the full implications over time"
No one is stopping the IP maximists from debating those implications. and if the abolitionists (or at least those who want to reduce IP) can't reasonably respond, then IP maximists will easily be able to convince the public of their position in the face of criticism. The reason they block criticism is because they know very well that they will lose the full implications over time debate just as well. Otherwise, they should have no problems winning that debate in the face of criticism and convincing the public that they are right.
The fact is that the reasoning in favor of IP is no better than the reasoning in favor of 95+ year copy protection lengths and IP maximists know it, which is why they block criticisms. The laws are written for the corporations by the corporations and have little to do with the public will or interest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can't see any contradiction there. [6]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They will need a lot of money to build the great Firewall of Amerika
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Priceless...
Internet Freedom Agenda - $25 Million
Unintended Shutdown of Thousands of Websites - Uncounted Amounts of Collateral Damage
Having your hypocrisy pasted all over the Internet - PRICELESS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there's a right time for the American people to fight back and make their government understand that they've gone too far, it's right about now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If we kill both programs
we can save almost a billion dollars
/ carl sagen voice off
and both us and them would he happier and safer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]