Hackers Figuring Out How To Set Up Satellites To Route Around Internet Censorship
from the hackers-find-a-way dept
It's been pointed out over and over again that censoring the internet is no way to deal with things like copyright infringement -- and that people will always figure out ways to route around such censorship. That's why it's interesting to hear that some folks at the famed Chaos Communication Congress in Berlin last week outlined some plans to set up their own satellite system for routing around internet censorship around the globe. And... a key reason given for why this is needed? SOPA, of course:He cited the proposed Stop Online Piracy Act (Sopa) in the United States as an example of the kind of threat facing online freedom. If passed, the act would allow for some sites to be blocked on copyright grounds.They're obviously a long way from this, but the ability of amateurs to build and launch their own satellites into space has been growing and that's only going to accelerate. On top of that, with efforts like SOPA and other censorship efforts around the globe, it's giving more urgency to folks who believe in freedom of speech and civil liberties to figure out ways to decentralize and move away from systems that can be controlled by governments.
We've noted in the past couple of years that a few big events have started to call attention to the parts of the network that are centarlized and vulnerable to censorship -- and that's resulted in numerous efforts to decentralize those elements and make them censorship-proof. These projects won't all work (and some will certainly fail miserably), but as more and more people realize that these censor-proof systems are needed, it means that they will get created.
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, free speech, hackers, pipa, protect ip, satellites, sopa
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why are satellites and satellite space 'owned' by corporations to begin with? If the govt puts up many of these satellites and/or if these satellites occupy (what should be) public space, shouldn't we all have some access to them without going through a government established private/corporate gatekeeper? Are these satellites being used efficiently for the public interest or for corporate interests and what policy changes can we make to optimize their public utility and not just their corporate utility?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know...It's not like stealing power or water, they can't just "turn it off", but who's problem is that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: 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:
> shouldn't we all have some access to them without going
> through a government established private/corporate
> gatekeeper?
You don't have a right to access someone else's private property merely because that property is in a 'public space'.
The oceans are as much 'public space' as near-earth orbit but that doesn't mean you can't just board and use any ship or boat on the high seas that you like because it's in a 'public space'. Likewise the owner of a multi-million-dollar satellite doesn't suddenly lose their private property rights just because they launch it into orbit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
outlaw this too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: outlaw this too
Frankly, I am still waiting for the ATMOS-like device attached to our computers filtering out the copyright material or the EarPods that filter out copyright material from our brains. What could possibly go wrong with either of these devices?
I'll just create fake versions and wait for the Doctor to pop by.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crowdsourcing
Modesty prevents me from saying this was a brilliant idea ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourcing
However, replacing it begs the question: does it need to be replaced? I think serious debate on that point should occur before we put ourselves in situation where we could just "meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crowdsourcing
Dunno, I'm thinking like some sort of server rack. If you turn off any of the clusters or they get some sort of corruption the rest can isolate it and ignore the damage maintaining the integrity. Granted you have less hardware power but it prevents the whole thing from crashing.
I might be wrong but that's how I see it. No bosses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crowdsourcing
So, in the short term I don't see something like ICANN go away and I find it hard to believe, that the powers that be would allow an entity organized like CACert or something similar to gain control over the root zone and address assignment while a replacement system, which would shut them out entirely, is developed. But, as the pressure is increasing, there will be technical solutions, some pieces are already in place, others need to be developed. Still nothing insurmountable AFAICS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourcing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crowdsourcing
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110705/02241714968/homeland-security-working-hard-to-ma ke-sure-no-one-wants-to-use-com-net-domains.shtml#c485
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Crowdsourcing
*highfives Gwiz* Brilliant indeed!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Welcome back
Tough not getting enough techdirt articles.
As for SOPA, it will be interesting to see just how far the lobbyist can push this thing through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real trick is going to be arranging for competition in things like DNS and IP number assignments, without also fragmenting the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If by "spacelift" you mean "going up a few thousand feet".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rebels has always been inside me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unless they fire hundreds of satellites into space, their "network" will never have enough redundancy to withstand the kinds of attacks that it was designed to defeat in the first place. And who's going to finance all that?
They would be better off spending their time developing some sort of wide area, distributed, wireless network that is easy and cheap to set up. That could probably work. And some the infrastructure is already in place (pretty much anyone I know has a wireless router, an I can "detect" dozens of them in my neighbourhood).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think it's a little harder to knock down a satellite than that. Depending on the distance from the earth and what type of orbit it's in such as geosynchronous, they could be moving upwards of 15,000 MPH or even faster. It can be done, but it's super expensive and extremely difficult to do undetected.... besides... you would not want to be the first government to throw that stone....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is never pretty when a government thinks they can win a pissing contest with the general population. The Government only has the power given to it by the people. Once it abuses that power the people will rise up and take it back. In this case you can look forward to a lot of disruptions to satellite services before all this is done.
[ 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:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: some government will just shoot it down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hummm, on a second thought, probably the government will have that ability first! Or already has!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-satellite_weapon#Recent_ASATs
There is only the small problem that, due to orbital mechanics, they are not really "taken down". The fragments of whatever was destroyed stay in orbit, and still have a very high speed (having a very high speed is a prerequisite for being in orbit, in fact). And since it has been destroyed, it does not have any active control, making the fragments a hazard to other satellites and space stations.
Due to the risk of creating a Kessler cascade, any space-faring nation would only destroy a satellite as a last option, unless the target's orbit is low enough that most fragments would reenter in a few weeks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And Mike, if you're so worried about people's rights, then where is your concerned for all of the people whose rights are violated everyday on the internet? Funny how you don't care about those people, and in fact, you support the lawbreakers. Guess some rights are worth more than others, right? What a piece of work you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not one word about how Mike turned "an example" into the "key reason"? Tell me, Zachary, can you admit that Mike exaggerated that and that it's just another example of Mike's bias when it comes to all things SOPA? Please, address this point. I'm curious what your take is.
As far as all the whining about "censorship" goes, tell me this: How exactly is SOPA censorship? I posted a couple days ago about how there's a broad and a narrow defintion of censorship. Not sure if you saw it.
Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has.
Under the broad definition, any government regulation of speech is considered to be censorship. An example of this would be a noise ordinance. I can stand in my front lawn, standing on a soapbox, talking about how great same-sex marriage is all day long. But what I can't do is crank up my amplifier so that I'm outputting 160 decibels. While the noise ordinance is censorship in the broad sense, I don't think most people would agree that that's the bad kind of censorship--the Chinese kind of censorship--because the government is not regulating WHAT I say. They're only regulating the manner in which I can say it.
Mike, of course, is using the broad definition of censorship because it carries with it negative connotations (China!!!!), but really, this isn't the bad kind of censorship. SOPA is more like a noise ordinance than it is like China-style censorship.
So tell me this: What kind of censorship are you talking about with SOPA? Is it the bad, Chinese kind, or is it the other kind, like a time, place, or manner restriction that already constrain most of what we can do?
I'm just not seeing how this is the bad kind of censorship. Comparing us to China and pretending like this is the end of the world is just a rhetorical device that pro-piracy apologists like Mike use. It works on the masses, I suppose, but apparently I'm immune (thank God!).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So the noise ordinance that prevents me from blasting my pro-same-sex-marriage diatribe is bad? I bet my next door neighbor would disagree. You're right that censorship is all around us. I respectfully disagree that it's all bad. In fact, I don't see how society could properly function without censorship.
I suppose you think it's bad that you can't break into your neighbor's house so you can exercise your free speech rights there, right? I mean, those silly trespassing laws are CENSORSHIP, and all censorship is bad, right? Sigh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This appears to be a somewhat homophobic or heterophobic stance (dependant on whether you're against pro-same-sex-marriage or whther the diatribe is against all that is against pro-same-sex-marriages), just as well we're not censored or you'd never be able to make such a statement.
Whether you're shouting it from a soapbox or pumping it through an amp, I would think your neighbor would be pretty pissed off either way, still, it's better than being pissed on - allegedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
IP does not affect the essential functions of a nation, therefore any legislative efforts are, indeed, censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111221/03041717154/righthaven-tries-new-strategy-maybe- if-it-just-ignores-marc-randazza-hell-go-away.shtml#c968
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No noise ordinance regulates content...only volume, and only at specific times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There, no need to censor anyone because of noise.
The funny part though is that the "pirate message" as you call it is all over the internet and elsewhere and can be spread freely, your message on the other hand probably would have to have everybody pay for it to spread or get taken down by the owner of that message amiright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Are you the guy that call child services on your neighbors because they make noise that you don't like?
Are you the guy that for petty reasons study city ordinances to screw your neighbors?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Let's take your example of a noise ordnance. Let's say that a city has had a number of people exceed the noise level and are not able to keep up with the infractions. So instead of reviewing the issue, finding out what the real problem is and working a solution that actually addresses the problem, they instead decide to ban all amplified outdoor communication instead. Not only does this effect those that were in violation of the noise ordnance, it also makes other legal activities illegal, such as the ice cream man and protestors. This is how SOPA works. Instead of creating a narrowly targeted law that deal only with copyright infringement, Congress has instead made it possible to shut down entire avenues of communication.
That is bad. That is censorship.
As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA targets websites that are dedicated to infringement, and they are taken down only via court order and with all the procedural safeguards provided by the Federal Rules. What else would you target but the websites themselves? You guys keep saying it's not "narrowly targeted" enough, but you don't explain how you would target things more narrowly.
Tell me, Zachary, what the perfect law would be to deal with these rogue sites. What would the definition be? What would the procedures be? I'm seeing a lot of whining but no viable alternatives. I can't help but think that you and the other whiners will complain no matter what the law actually says. The fact is, you don't want anything to be done about piracy. And given that, it's hard to take your criticisms seriously.
As for your issue with "a key issue" and "an example" considering there were no other examples given in the source article, I don't see any issue calling it a key issue. If there was a better example to give other than general censorship, then why did the source article not use it?
That's just silly, but I'm not surprised you're defending Mike. If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason." Mike twisted it like he twists everything SOPA-related to suit his needs. Mike couldn't be honest about SOPA if his life depended on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I don't think there is a perfect law. A perfect law would be one that completely eradicated the problem. Therefore, there are no perfect laws.
However, if you want an example of a better solution, you already have one. It is called the OPEN Act. While it is not perfect, it does a better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites than SOPA does.
If I say I want to launch satellites to combat censorship, and give as "an example" SOPA, it's not accurate to report that my example is the "key reason."
Mike never said it was "the key reason" he said it was "a key reason" It was reason enough to be the sole cited reason in the source article. If that is not enough to consider it a key reason, then I don't know what is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But why is the OPEN Act better than SOPA? How does it do a "better job at targeting the issue of rogue sites"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Exactly. I don't actually expect Zachary to explain why the OPEN Act is better at targeting rogue sites than SOPA. But you and I both know why the pirate-apologists like it better--it's simply designed to be less effective at combating piracy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
SOPA does not have that. OPEN does. That is one reason why OPEN is better.
To tell you the truth, I think neither law is actually needed as we have seen time and time again that they are not needed at all. Many companies and artists are able to make money despite the proliferation of piracy. Piracy is a business model problem and so it is the business model that needs to adjust to reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess, all I can really do is point to this article regarding OPEN and its pros and cons.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/13013417024/good-bad-new-open-bill-wyden-issa.sht ml
Whether you think that is a valid defense or not is not my concern. But as I said before, I really don't think either law is necessary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doesn't matter what SOPA targets. It matters what SOPA allows. We've seen with the DMCA that it has been repeatedly abused to do things for which the DMCA was never intended or targeted.
You have to either be the most naive human being who has ever lived or you're being purposely obtuse for effect to not recognize that SOPA will be abused the same way, and since the powers it confers to both private parties and the government make the DMCA look like a kid's toy, the resultant harm to innocent/legal parties from its abuse will be quite severe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact that you can't see any alternatives to massive government overreach and constitutional violation in order to solve a problem doesn't make massive government overreach and constitutional violation acceptable.
And it's not up to the people to come up with a better way to police the net for the entertainment industry or else have draconian censorship laws applied to them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Doctor 2: "Shame. Well, we better shoot him."
Doctor 1: "Yep. It's the only way to stop the cancer from spreading to his lymph nodes."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It may be INTENDED as "noise ordinance", but it can be easily used as "China-style censorship" with it's minimal requirements for proof before a takedown.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
You've been reading Techdirt too much. That's simply idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So no I am concerned that the way this bill is set up, with the private right to action, it would allow companies to stifle competitors without a judge looking at anything. Certainly Viacom isn't above using content it uploaded to youtube itself as proof that youtube infringes what would stop them from doing the same thing to other sites under sopa, and getting their site blocked and revenue cut off before any judge looks at anything?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, you're referring to sections of SOPA that have been cut out. There is no more "private right of action" as you call it. Everything is now done in a federal court, before a federal judge, and following the Federal Rules.
Read the latest version and see for yourself: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/HR%203261%20Managers%20Amendment.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=private+right+of+action#sclient =psy-ab&hl=en&source=hp&q=private+right+of+action+sopa&pbx=1&oq=private+right+of +action+sopa&aq=f&aqi=g-b1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=4173l5116l0l5769l5l4l0l0l0l0l290l 754l0.3.1l4l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a8528f9ce49c3b50&biw=702&bih=537
[ 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: Re:
So an ISP or paypal ect. receives a letter from the **AA or Disney saying this site is dedicated to infringement they can go ahead and block that site with full immunity for their actions. Not only does this allow ISPs et. al. to block sites of their own accord (which could very well happen since most of them share parent companies with content providers) but it also means that if they receive a letter from a content provider saying this is infringement please block, its in their best interest (and their legal team will tell them this every time) to just go ahead and block the site.
So they didn't really remove the bad section they just reworded it and hid it a bit better. Did you realize that when you told me it was removed? Are you really as sneaky and disingenuous as they say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL! Sneaky and disingenuous? You must be thinking of Masnick--that's his bag, not mine.
If you're referring to Section 105, that provision exists in both versions of SOPA, though it was expanded a bit in SOPA 2.0. See it for yourself in the original draft: http://judiciary.house.gov/hearings/pdf/112%20HR%203261.pdf
It provides immunity for those providers who act in good faith. Of course, those providers who cut off rogue actors based on a good faith belief would already not be liable for those actions. If Google Ads or Visa think I'm using their service for criminal deeds, they can already cut me off. It's right there in their terms of service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It still leaves that (what I am apparently mislabeling) private right to action by allowing companies to censor what they want based on weak evidence and without judicial oversite. They simply got rid of the section I and many others have a problem with but suck the same powers in elsewhere. Sure this doesn't have the do it in 5 days or else language the original section had but companies wishing to avoid liability will certainly act quickly, not to mention those seeing a sneaky way to disrupt competitors.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dajaz1.com was blocked for an entire year from the internet without charge and without trial. The evidence that the RIAA gave to law enforcement was faulty. Thus, we have a collusion between the media conglomerates and law enforcement to censor speech. Later, the very same media conglomerates go on to sponsor SOPA. Well, Joe, I don't trust them. They have lost my trust and the trust of thousands of others. So, I will take the position that SOPA will benefit the conglomerates to my and other's detriment.
And no, don't bother saying Dajaz1.com was a pirate site. They were never found guilty of breaking the law, yet were punished anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I agree with you about the specific case of dajaz1.com"
Funny, you said something completely different here.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/17023317058/justice-department-hanging-onto-torre nt-finder-because-it-doesnt-like-how-search-engines-work.shtml#c855
http://www.techdirt.com/artic les/20111211/22524417035/congressional-investigations-into-dajaz1com-censorship-begin.shtml#c724
You said that due process was followed. You said that there was probable cause. Turns out there wasn't. So which is it? Do you agree with me about Dajaz1.com or was the DoJ correct to censor it?
What I did here is see something you said today and checked back on your profile what you said before. They're two different things. This is what Mike has done before with some of the supporters of SOPA, the politicians who have said in the past they don't support government regulation of the internet or similar statements, and then gone on to be hypocritical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And, yes, my opinion of the Operation in Our Sites has changed as I learn more about Due Process and the First Amendment. If you think that's me being hypocritical, then I don't know what to tell you. I make mistakes, I learn from them, and I admit when I'm wrong. I only care about getting the law right, and my opinion actually changes as new information becomes known. I can't say that much for Mike et al.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's not exactly true. SOPA claims would be filed in a federal district court, and the only way the site would be blocked without an adversarial hearing would be if the court issued an ex parte TRO, or if the defendant didn't show up to defend the suit. An ex parte TRO would only issue if the judge was convinced that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm otherwise, and even then a TRO is limited to 14 days max (with one possible extension of another 14 days). I see no reason why TROs would issue at all in the typical case. Instead, the judge would likely issue a preliminary injunction which by definition can only occur after notice and a hearing. Now, if the defendant doesn't show up to the hearing once notified, then that's the defendant's fault and his rights will be adjudicated without him.
The procedures in SOPA are the procedures used in the federal courts already. To say they violate Due Process is silly. No Federal Rule has ever been declared unconstitutional in a Due Process challenge or otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And about your changed opinion of Operation in Our Sites and SOPA...well good. But that still doesn't account for all the times you railed against us for being against SOPA because of "piracy". If you're now against SOPA, then why do you attack us for being against it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I still do support Operation in Our Sites and SOPA, so sorry if I gave you a different impression. SOPA is procedurally adequate, and Operation in Our Sites is only problematic with respect to websites that have significant amounts of protected speech on them (which seems to be very few of the sites targeted). Sites that sell fake NFL jerseys and such are rightfully seized and forfeited. Sites with protected speech on them just need to be given a chance to challenge the seizures promptly afterwards. So with a minor tweaking, Operation in Our Sites would be fine in all cases.
What's not fine is websites that exist for the purpose of violating other people's rights. It never ceases to amaze me how much Mike doesn't care about that. He's decided for himself which rights are worth protecting and which ones it's OK to violate. That's a sick and twisted view of things, IMO. It's absolutely disgusting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You seem to be doing the same thing just for the other side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Huh? I do not it's ever OK to violate someone's rights, nor would I ever say that it is. Not sure what you're talking about...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How can you say you support operation in our sites when we know of three different websites that have had their rights violated. Sure some criminals were put to bed (not really they just moved on and set up a new site, no counterfeit merch was seized ect ect)but we know of three that got raped by the system and I would assume there were others who just said fuck it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
or if a provider just decides to block a site based on "credible evidence" or acting in "good faith" because they can just up and block whatever they want and be fully immune to consequences.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You know, AJ, I think this is exactly what makes you hypocritical. You complain about Mike making mistakes, and get all up in his grill about it, and then when someone points out your mistakes you say "I make mistakes." Yet, for the most part (with noted exceptions) you don't actually show where Mike made a mistake, or you state something that Mike didn't actually say or do as proof that he made a mistake. Everyone here makes mistakes, and we all know it, and most of us take the comments by others to heart and change -- but some of us continue to beat up on Mike for past transgressions that may or may not have really happened while we ask for forgiveness from others for our own.
The very definition of hypocritical (hate to bring the Bible into it,) is when you point out the sliver in your brother's eye while ignoring the plank in your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> used to bring China-like censorship to the U.S., where
> websites get taken down not because they're used to
> violate people's rights but because of the messages and
> ideas being voiced on those sites?
Look what happened with Wikileaks. The government did everything it could think of to force that information offline. You don't think that if the government had a SOPA-llike law at its disposal that it wouldn't have used it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You point out the noise ordinance and claim it is the same. Well lets take a look at that. If you go out in your yard you can go on all you want about same-sex marriage. You can even go door to door and tell everyone how great it is. That is your right. When you pull out your amp you can even amplify it to a certain point. Once you past that point you will be told to turn it down or face a fine.
Now if that law was like SOPA then you would step out on your lawn and start talking only to gave guys run up and toss you into the street. Your home will be taken and your bank accounts frozen. You will not have a trial or any warning you will just be left homeless. Of course you are free to go to court and challenge these actions. You will have to prove to the court though that what you were saying was totally legal.
To make it worse, under SOPA it would not even need to be you talking. Someone else could walk up in your yard and start talking only to have the same results of you tossed out of your home. I mean you should have been taking measures to make sure no one spoke illegally on your lawn right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
We all saw, and the example was just as flawed then as it is now.
Basically, my argument is that SOPA is not about censorship in the narrow sense, which is how I think most people use the term. Censorship under this view is when the government regulates the subject matter or the viewpoint being expressed. For example, government regulation of what people say about same-sex marriage would be censorship--the bad kind of censorship that China has...
Let's get one point out right off the bat... this narrow vs broad definition argument you are using is yours alone. This is not a commonly acknowledged distinction, so please do not try to present this as something that everyone knows and that Mike is (insert whatever insult you're slinging today here). Censorship means the government restricting/ceasing speech, and that is THE definition. SOPA is censorship by the actual definition no matter how you'd like to narrow YOUR definition to suit your argument.
Not that we've gotten that point clear, let's address your actual example. You are saying that there is a difference between "broad" and "narrow" censorship. You use the example of a city noise ordinance law as a form of censorship in that it prohibits you from saying that which you would otherwise be able to say unless its decibel level remains within a predetermined threshold. I would disagree with you that this is censorship because it does not restrict what you can say, only how loudly you can say it. You can stand on your soapbox and say all of the positive or negative things about same-sex marriage that you would like, and as long as you don't violate other laws (not pertaining to the content of speech) no one can stop this speech. Censorship is the restraint of speech and city ordinance laws do not retrain what you can say. They may place restraint on how and when you can say it, but not on the content itself. Essentially your example is not accurate to the situation.
To be clear, censorship is a restraint on speech... and to say it simpler, it is the government saying WHAT you can or cannot say. Laws that potentially effect how, when, or where you can say something are not a true restraint on speech as they do not limit the speech themselves. Dajaz1.com is perfect example of actual censorship. The entire site was removed from the internet for a year with restraint on tons of legitimate and protected speech. This is the true face of censorship that we are worried about with SOPA and past events have shown that the government is willing to do it.
I really don't follow your distinction between this "broad" and "narrow" definition of yours, and your soapbox/noise ordinance example certainly does not support this example. Maybe if you would define censorship in general, I'd have better understanding of this distinction. The common definition of censorship put in layman's terms is when the government removes or blocks speech from the public. Your soapbox example doesn't address the restraint of speech. As I stated above, the noise ordinance does not place any restraint on the speech as it is totally agnostic to the content. Simply put, it says that no speech may occur above this decibel level after that hour of the day. Comparing this example to Mike's opinion that SOPA (which does have the ability to retrain speech) is censorship (whether you want to use your "broad" or "narrow" distinction is fallacious and a false comparison. SOPA has the ability to remove speech and that meets any definition of censorship that you can come up with... PERIOD. Abrahams himself admitted that SOPA WILL result in first amendment violations, he just didn't care about those instances (most likely because he was being paid not to care IMHO).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And it's not like that will be abused at all. Oh, wait, Yes it has been by not only Sony, but Newscorp, Time Warner, MGM, NBCUniversal and a number of other prominent IP holders.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Basically your dishonesty just shows more and more, as was answered to you in that post, copyright is a monopoly which is the root causes of censorship bills that we are seeing, not one bill that censor anything including the pedo ones stayed only for the purposes of what was originally intended once it get there, the government sees a chance to censor more and more and more.
The terrorist bill passed in the past to catch terrorist?
Not used to catch terrorists at all, it is used for everything but terrorists.
The DMCA?
Not used at all to fight copyright infringement but as a tool to harass honest and legal business competitors and censor others.
As for Mike's exaggeration I think not, he even gave the quote or didn't you see it?
Any one with 2 eyes and a brain can see that the guy in Germany, cited SOPA as a censorship threat to humanity, wrong or right that is what he did and you are saying that he did not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now get back to sucking at making content instead of pretending to be a law school dropout.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike has repeatedly written articles on all the reasons he's against SOPA. From it will be used as a censorship tool (violate free speech) to it will be ineffective (there are already workarounds against it) to it will make the internet less secure (DNS blocking). And so on and so forth. He has NOT once apologized for piracy in any of that. What he has said, more than once, is that this isn't going to work, "here's why..." Then he's gone on to even suggest ideas on how to beat piracy and how to win over customers.
That you ignore all this is just proof of your bias against Mike.
I mean, are you saying that Google, DNS providers, the engineers who invented the internet, etc are ALL piracy apologists? Because that's what your comment would suggest. Anyone who is against SOPA is a pirate or pirate apologist.
You know, average_joe, you're the worst kind of troll on here. You attempt to come off as a reasonable and willing to debate points in a logical and reasonable manner, but first chance you get you say things like that ("Mike is a pirate apologist", "this is Techdirt after all..." etc etc etc). You shoot yourself in the foot and make people not want to take you even remotely seriously. Then you go off on tangents.
A week later and you're still going on about "narrow" and "broad" censorship. Censorship is censorship. Narrow, broad, doesn't matter. And you're "noise ordinance" example way up above was terrible. It shows you speak at times without thinking, in your example you failed to see that you can still say whatever you please. Just not as loud as you please. No one is censoring you.
I say, just give it a rest for the day. If this is just Techdirt though and Mike is nothing but a pirate apologists and the rest of us are all freetards or whatever you think we are, maybe you should move on from this site completely. Take a page from Blue and some of the other ACs books'. There ARE sites where you can b*tch and hate about people like us to your hearts content with other like minded people. Why not go visit such a site and make it your new home? Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And how does my noise ordinance example show I speak without thinking? That's an example of a government regulation of speech that Mike would call censorship, but I don't think most people would agree. I thought the example made the point well. Sorry you disagree. How should I properly have made that point?
And, sorry, I'll exercise my right to speak freely on Techdirt if I please. (What, are you trying to censor me?) I can tell that you don't like it when people say things you disagree with. Sorry, but that's your problem. If you disagree with me, then explain your reasons and have a debate. Telling me to leave is a silly way to deal with opinions that are contra to your own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your noise ordinance example was you speaking and trying to compare it to censorship. Censorship being when your right to speak is effectively blocked. Noise ordinance is not censorship, you can still speak. But you can't scream it out loud. Or what have you. Thus you spoke without thinking through the example fully. It wasn't comparable in the least. Which is why I pointed out it was a bad example and you didn't think it through. You tried to conflate noise ordinance laws with censorship when they're anything but.
I'm not trying to censor you. (I was so waiting for you to say that, a nice fallback position for those on your side of the debate.) I was merely pointing out that you seem to not want to have any kind of real debate. You try and come off as reasonable, as I said earlier. But the moment you get the chance it's "you guys just want to steal", "Mike is wrong and a piracy apologist", etc. You can't do both. You can be reasonable and speak using logic and all that jazz. Or you can act like a troll, insult others, avoid the actual discussion at hand, etc.
You seem to do both. Going back and forth as you see fit.
I don't have a problem with anyone saying something I don't like, in fact most of my best friends I disagree with on a variety of important issues. We get along and discuss things just fine. However, if we can't have a discussion without at least meeting halfway and resorting to name calling, we prefer to part ways or just avoid one another for a bit. That's what I'm suggesting. If Mike is always wrong and being an apologist (per your beliefs) and the people here are all thieves and whatnot, perhaps your time and words would be better off spent and spoken elsewhere.
I don't need to explain my reasons or debate you, I've done so twice now. You come off one way, act another at times, etc. There's no point debating with someone who'll come up with "well, you're a piracy apologist, but what did I expect speaking to someone here at Techdirt" first chance they get. That is what you do. And that is a problem.
You can stay, I have no problem with that. I encourage it, but only if you plan on actually having a discussion reasonably and without the "oh Mike this" or "Techdirt, what did I expect that". It shows you aren't ready to behave in an adult like manner and be respectful. You say I need to explain my reasons and whatnot, yet you slam Mike repeatedly every chance you get. Mike explains himself and his views. In fact, he joins in on the comments and does so when called out by people. That you ignore his own words just to call him a "piracy apologist" says a lot about you. It says you aren't willing to listen to what people have to say and prefer to make assumptions about them and use your own biased points of views to judge and slam them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Stop slinging this bullshit around. I don't give a good goddamn about infringement, but anything that is going to restrict my rights is flat out evil.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
One of the many nature's failure to achieve perfection.
See I'm dehumanizing you right now. That is bad. I don't want people to see you like a chicken for acting like a chicken little, people don't care about chickens and what happens to them, people will start abusing you and they will feel that nothing wrong is happening, just like you are trying to dehumanized "pirates" and trying to make them look bad so people stop seeing them as human beings that deserve respect and consideration.
you try to use the word "piracy" as something bad, when piracy can be a number of things like making a backup, lending music, movies or books to someone else, xeroxing a book to study, using something to create another thing, being able to earn a living on the streets, you apparently just ignore all those other things and just want people to see bad things about it and they are not buying your vision of it, have you ever wondered why?
Maybe because your own efforts made you look like a chicken in the public eyes, you are not human anymore, you are a failed human being.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> and operated that are dedicated to violating people's rights.
If I launch my satellite from another country whose laws are different and where such things are not illegal, how can the US legally prohibit it?
Or have we again reached the theory (which you continue to dance around but never openly advocate because you know it's unjustifiable) the US is just going to impose its laws on the entire world?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There is no law in space, which is both good and bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
You're so obsessed with this notion. This must be the tenth time you've brought it up with me. You're really boring with this line of argument. And for the record, no, I do not think that U.S. law applies outside of the U.S. How could it even I wanted it to? As far as what law applies in space, I have no idea. Never thought about it and don't care. Not interesting enough to research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No more than you're obsessed with avoiding it. You make a statement like, "The government won't allow such satellites..." yet you completely ignore the very real fact that not all satellites are launched from US soil, belong to US citizens/companies, or fall under US jurisdiction.
Other than the US assuming some kind of heretofore unheard of (and necessarily one-sided), legally unjustifiable extra-territorial jurisdiction over near-earth orbit in its entirety, how is do you suppose the government will prevent such things, as you vaguely suggested in your original comment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
YES! Finally, you get it! Copyright is a government-granted right that should only exist if is to the public's benefit as originally intended. As far as rights go it already ranks fairly low on the scale. Public opinion of copyright is at an all-time low thanks to the ridiculous state of copyright laws today, whereas other more fundamental rights are far more treasured and respected, so it's entirely correct that "some rights are worth more than others."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It's scary how guys like you and Mike think you get to decide which rights are worth protecting and which rights it's OK to violate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The fact is, the law takes into consideration the fact that First Amendment free speech rights exist, and this is why laws are subject to First Amendment scrutiny. An otherwise valid law can be struck down on First Amendment grounds.
What the law doesn't do is pretend like some rights are OK to violate. It's never OK to violate someone's rights, no matter what the source of those rights is. So it makes no sense, legally speaking, to pretend like some rights can be violated. It doesn't work that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Methinks you should read the Declaration of Independance again. What's that? They don't use it at your law school? Hmmm.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..."
Care to parse that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Not granted monopolies those trigger tears and blood.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And what about this? "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it". You think the Constitution will stop this from happening again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> which rights are worth protecting and which rights it's OK to
> violate.
It's scary how you've made it as far as you have in law school without any apparent grasp of the obvious distinction between a state-granted economic monopoly and an actual fundamental right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You mean, those of your corporate masters? Think again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about building a cooperative ISP, with no owners? DumbPipes Coop
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100512/1116409394.shtml
its not illegal to have open wifi but you are liable for 3rd parties on your open wifi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wired - Radio Zeta: How Mexico’s Drug Cartels Stay Networked
If real criminals can do it, why can't people?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clooney's Satellites
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2101425,00.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Censorship sucks
www.---censored----.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The day Monsanto realizes that gene mod organisms can be printed out with a usb powered fabber should be an interesting one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUEvRyemKSg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet Destroyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet Destroyer
So while cutting off the money would strangle any number of entities that rely on it, it won't destroy the Internet. All it will do is cause a momentary ripple, followed by a thousand new initiatives -- all of which will far more resistant to interference by governments and corporations.
It's at this point that you should be reaching for a copy of "The Shockwave Rider" by John Brunner and reading it very carefully.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Internet Destroyer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BitTorrent already have a decentralize network aka DHT, so it shouldn't be that hard to make a internet that can go around any so-called-censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why Satellites?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Casting & Entertainment, 100 % Free
Casting DNA - The Largest 100 % Free Entertainment Network
www.CastingDNA.com
Whether you're looking for auditions, want to get in touch with production people or just market yourself as actor/model or Hollywood professional
Dozens of new Casting Notices in Los Angeles, New York, Miami, Chicago or Atlanta are listed on Casting DNA. Join the largest 100 % FREE Casting & Entertainment Network.
Casting Director can POST 100 % free.
Talent can submit themselves to notices 100 % free.
LET'S WORK TOGETHER!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BLAST OFF!
The high-tech rocket fuels of the future could be made from a surprisingly low-tech material: candle wax!
http://science1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/28jan_envirorocket/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]