I think it's very interesting and very telling as to what kind of society we've become.
If being or pretending to be an "expert" on something via FB or twitter gives someone an edge, we've got serious problems.
Personally I don't like all the social networking.
I only broke down and made a FB profile so I could keep in touch with my nieces since they all seem to live on that dang site... I do have to admit I find interesting news and such on it but I have no inclination to add my 2 cents everywhere and on everything to try to push myself off as some kind of "expert" or "influential".
I thought I read here somewhere that DHS hired people - some even from Craigslist - to sit on BitTorrent and find IPs, that's why I thought it was tied to gov't.
Guess it's time to learn to set up my wifi with better security. I'm just afraid I'll diddle something up and wind up with no I-net but guess I can always get some help if that happens. Thanks for the clarification guys/gals.
Thank you, AC ... see that actually did make sense to me and I have read a little on it. Naturally I was incensed when all this occurred - it's just awful to be accused of something when you're completely innocent of any wrong doing. And far too often anyone can say anything these days and never be held accountable to prove it. It's not a good precedent.
Oh, also wanted to mention, yep - I use WEP. (It's the only way I know how to use...go ahead and laugh at me now, I can take it). It's scary to think I could be accused and sued for something I didn't do because some kid knows how to steal wifi. I can't help but wonder how many of these 24,000-plus find themselves in that same position and that is very troubling.
Well, he got access some how. I wish I had a better understanding of how all that works but I just don't and while I'd like to, never had the time to research the whole issue.
"Send me your home address and I'll drop by and explain further."
Was wondering the same thing... I mean, are we supposed to feel "safer" now?
What is up with DHS sitting at computers thinking up ways to "get" people who are just sitting in their homes "entertaining" themselves? It's astonishing to see story after story roll out about Internet "seizures" and IP #'s "reported" for potential lawsuits... I mean, how are all these people threatening the home land and/or our collective security??? If someone wants to lose their money playing poker, that's not threatening anyone else but themselves.
These are the kind of things they're robbing me out of house and home for via taxation?
Part of the wonder of the web is that it's world wide ... where the U.S. gets off acting as if it owns a vast portion of the Internet is beyond me, much less now trying to tell us where we can or cannot purchase something from.
Feeling more and more like I'm in China these days.
Cripes. D.C. needs one hell of a house cleaning. When is Leahy up for re-election? robin, maybe you could consider getting involved and working to oust him from office if you aren't already.
Okay, maybe I'm missing something here and if so I'm sure someone will be more than happy to point out what it is, but what about our 4th amendment?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
Are we not supposed to be left alone in our homes? It seems to me that our tax dollars being spent on literal spies at DHS sitting at a computer looking for IP #'s is illegal search...but what do I know, I'm no lawyer.
And I still have a problem with turning sharing into stealing. The reason I have a bug up my butt about this is because I got one of those nasty letters once and was flabbergasted - it was impossible, so I thought...turned out some guy managed to access my wireless, which I do have a password for, just for the record. I discovered the guy by accident. I was sitting on my porch on a warm evening and saw the guy lurking about in a field across the street from me with laptop. I actually talked with him (cell phone in hand on 911) and he admitted it. In fact, he was the one who told me to ignore the letter and just not respond in any fashion. Nothing more ever came of it.
I asked him how the hell he pulled that off as it rather fascinated me and he said there's software a person can use to steal someone's wifi. Is that true? I honestly don't know...
@darryl, Do you realize you sound quite petty? Every time I see remarks like yours about Mr. Masnick my respect for him rises a notch.
The map is very creative and shows quite a bit of research. I don't see anywhere on it how the artist was/is aiming for a World War or depicting racism.
Okay, plain and real simple like for the shallow minded...
The bank analogy is to point out that no, in no way, should be held responsible to any degree or in any fashion whatsoever for the actions of another human being. You simply cannot "shoot the messenger" as the old saying goes. There's another old saying that applies, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" - something like that, anyway.
I'm 52 years old and apologize for "old sayings" but as you get older and experience more of life and the craziness of human nature, you understand why these old sayings stick around - they're spot on.
Personal responsibility is what it's all about. If I find every file sharing network I can and stick links to them on a web page, that does not make me any more guilty of a crime or of using the sites as it does the next guy/gal who may happen to lay eyes on the web page I put those links on. Which, in turn, makes me devoid of any criminal act unless it's proven I've "infringed copyright" - which merely linking to a site simply DOES. NOT. DO.
People make their own decisions in this life - others can't do that for them, not with a link, not with words.
As for my pen pal analogy - if you don't get it by now, never mind. I tried. I'll just agree to disagree on that one as I do believe it's very relevant. I was threatened with arrest for linking to a police station on a business web site for crying all night. I know what's possible from dictator wanna-be's so my sentiments come from experience, I just tried to keep the "me-ism" factor out of this.
"No, because you don't know what his intent is and you're not directing him to anything illegal."
No, but what if he lies? What if he says I said something I didn't? Criminals are notorious for lying. Also, how does anyone who posts a link to what you consider "infringing" material know exactly what others are going to do if they decide to visit the link? How do you even know every visitor WILL visit the link, much less take advantage of whatever is on said link?
You are taking innocent, unknown people and determining them guilty of a crime when in truth you have no clue what anyone is going to actually DO (or has done) when they visit these links.
As for the prison pen pal site, guess I have to help you think deeper. What if a girl sees that link, finds a prisoner, writes to him, he gets out and brutally harms her in some unthinkable fashion and she tells authorities, "But I found the link on so-and-so's web site, it's all her fault! I never would have wrote if I hadn't found that link!" Is it then MY fault she decided to write a prisoner?
BAM. Under the ILLogic of this bill then I'm guilty? Which again I'll say, is preposterous.
Oh, a little too much clarity too much for you? Sorry, but this isn't an issue for knee-jerk reactions. All potential ramifications need to betaken seriously.
It may not be a bad idea to consider the points made rather than attempt a slam dunk just because you don't care for one or it doesn't suit your agenda or message, whichever applies.
Please don't ever run for office if you're in the U.S.
So if Joe-Blo walks up to me while I'm outside and asks where the nearest bank is and I give him directions, then he goes there and robs the bank, suddenly I'm a bank robber while I was just weeding my bushes because I gave him directions? I don't think so...
This whole thing is a slippery slope that needs to be nipped post haste. If this revolting IP act is allowed, there simply is no telling where they will go next.
There is also a statement in there that refers to anything "bad for public health" - that's not verbatim, but something to that effect. That is very vague and can lead to more murky waters that could have a profound negative effect on any number of web site owners that have nothing to do with copyright so-called "infringement".
Linking to a site doesn't make a person "party to criminal infringement".
That would be like saying if I linked to a prison pen pal site I'm party to every criminal's crimes. That's preposterous. You are presuming that a link to something that SOME call illegal means a person is guilty of criminal behavior. How do you prove such a thing?
You can't just up and accuse people of a crime because they make a statement of fact.
You can say, "Hey look. xyz.com has this that or the other thing" on a web page. That's not a criminal act, nor is it being party to one. Saying something is there doesn't mean a thing other than that - well, 'it's there'.
On the post: Is Influence A Number... And Is It Based On Twitter?
Re: More research required...
If being or pretending to be an "expert" on something via FB or twitter gives someone an edge, we've got serious problems.
Personally I don't like all the social networking.
I only broke down and made a FB profile so I could keep in touch with my nieces since they all seem to live on that dang site... I do have to admit I find interesting news and such on it but I have no inclination to add my 2 cents everywhere and on everything to try to push myself off as some kind of "expert" or "influential".
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
Apologies if I misunderstood that.
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re: Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re: Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
Oh, also wanted to mention, yep - I use WEP. (It's the only way I know how to use...go ahead and laugh at me now, I can take it). It's scary to think I could be accused and sued for something I didn't do because some kid knows how to steal wifi. I can't help but wonder how many of these 24,000-plus find themselves in that same position and that is very troubling.
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re: Re: Is this constitutional?
"Send me your home address and I'll drop by and explain further."
Ah thanks but that's okay...
On the post: Feds Seize More Poker Sites
Re:
What is up with DHS sitting at computers thinking up ways to "get" people who are just sitting in their homes "entertaining" themselves? It's astonishing to see story after story roll out about Internet "seizures" and IP #'s "reported" for potential lawsuits... I mean, how are all these people threatening the home land and/or our collective security??? If someone wants to lose their money playing poker, that's not threatening anyone else but themselves.
These are the kind of things they're robbing me out of house and home for via taxation?
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Re:
Can you imagine if they would have gone after bin laden with this much zeal? Maybe it wouldn't have taken 10 years...
On the post: Senator Leahy Supports Bringing Drugs In From Canada... And Also Banning Such Sites From The Internet
World Wide Web
Feeling more and more like I'm in China these days.
Cripes. D.C. needs one hell of a house cleaning. When is Leahy up for re-election? robin, maybe you could consider getting involved and working to oust him from office if you aren't already.
On the post: US Copyright Group Breaks Its Own Record; Sues 24,583 For Allegedly Sharing Hurt Locker
Is this constitutional?
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_Am4.html
Are we not supposed to be left alone in our homes? It seems to me that our tax dollars being spent on literal spies at DHS sitting at a computer looking for IP #'s is illegal search...but what do I know, I'm no lawyer.
And I still have a problem with turning sharing into stealing. The reason I have a bug up my butt about this is because I got one of those nasty letters once and was flabbergasted - it was impossible, so I thought...turned out some guy managed to access my wireless, which I do have a password for, just for the record. I discovered the guy by accident. I was sitting on my porch on a warm evening and saw the guy lurking about in a field across the street from me with laptop. I actually talked with him (cell phone in hand on 911) and he admitted it. In fact, he was the one who told me to ignore the letter and just not respond in any fashion. Nothing more ever came of it.
I asked him how the hell he pulled that off as it rather fascinated me and he said there's software a person can use to steal someone's wifi. Is that true? I honestly don't know...
Sorry, I am getting long winded.
On the post: The War On Sharing As An Infographic Of Europe
Re: Copyright and world war, nice,, whats next ?
The map is very creative and shows quite a bit of research. I don't see anywhere on it how the artist was/is aiming for a World War or depicting racism.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re:
And would you also please define this "pussy anarchism" you speak of?
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
The bank analogy is to point out that no, in no way, should be held responsible to any degree or in any fashion whatsoever for the actions of another human being. You simply cannot "shoot the messenger" as the old saying goes. There's another old saying that applies, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" - something like that, anyway.
I'm 52 years old and apologize for "old sayings" but as you get older and experience more of life and the craziness of human nature, you understand why these old sayings stick around - they're spot on.
Personal responsibility is what it's all about. If I find every file sharing network I can and stick links to them on a web page, that does not make me any more guilty of a crime or of using the sites as it does the next guy/gal who may happen to lay eyes on the web page I put those links on. Which, in turn, makes me devoid of any criminal act unless it's proven I've "infringed copyright" - which merely linking to a site simply DOES. NOT. DO.
People make their own decisions in this life - others can't do that for them, not with a link, not with words.
As for my pen pal analogy - if you don't get it by now, never mind. I tried. I'll just agree to disagree on that one as I do believe it's very relevant. I was threatened with arrest for linking to a police station on a business web site for crying all night. I know what's possible from dictator wanna-be's so my sentiments come from experience, I just tried to keep the "me-ism" factor out of this.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
No, but what if he lies? What if he says I said something I didn't? Criminals are notorious for lying. Also, how does anyone who posts a link to what you consider "infringing" material know exactly what others are going to do if they decide to visit the link? How do you even know every visitor WILL visit the link, much less take advantage of whatever is on said link?
You are taking innocent, unknown people and determining them guilty of a crime when in truth you have no clue what anyone is going to actually DO (or has done) when they visit these links.
As for the prison pen pal site, guess I have to help you think deeper. What if a girl sees that link, finds a prisoner, writes to him, he gets out and brutally harms her in some unthinkable fashion and she tells authorities, "But I found the link on so-and-so's web site, it's all her fault! I never would have wrote if I hadn't found that link!" Is it then MY fault she decided to write a prisoner?
BAM. Under the ILLogic of this bill then I'm guilty? Which again I'll say, is preposterous.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re:
It may not be a bad idea to consider the points made rather than attempt a slam dunk just because you don't care for one or it doesn't suit your agenda or message, whichever applies.
Please don't ever run for office if you're in the U.S.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Civil Forfeiture
This whole thing is a slippery slope that needs to be nipped post haste. If this revolting IP act is allowed, there simply is no telling where they will go next.
There is also a statement in there that refers to anything "bad for public health" - that's not verbatim, but something to that effect. That is very vague and can lead to more murky waters that could have a profound negative effect on any number of web site owners that have nothing to do with copyright so-called "infringement".
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re: Re: The constitutional
That would be like saying if I linked to a prison pen pal site I'm party to every criminal's crimes. That's preposterous. You are presuming that a link to something that SOME call illegal means a person is guilty of criminal behavior. How do you prove such a thing?
You can't just up and accuse people of a crime because they make a statement of fact.
You can say, "Hey look. xyz.com has this that or the other thing" on a web page. That's not a criminal act, nor is it being party to one. Saying something is there doesn't mean a thing other than that - well, 'it's there'.
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Re: Please!
Now that added WHAT to the conversation?
On the post: Here We Go Again: Operation In Our Sites Round 4 Kicks Off With More Domains Illegally Seized
Re: Re: Please!
Next >>