Not entirely relevant, but the wikileaks.ch DNS entry is now gone as well.
This entry was also hosted by EveryDNS, the same US company that had the original wikileaks.org. As I expect was the plan all along, it's quite clear now that a US company has effectively censored a Swiss address.
It's great to hear your patriotic (really, pro-administration) drivel and all, but at what point did the rest of the world stop thinking that it's the US who are the "dictators and genocidal fuckwads who lie like they breathe"?
Diplomacy needs secrecy and lying? Scheming and manipulation need secrecy and lying, and those things go far beyond the non-violent conflict resolution that your idea of diplomacy is about. Some secrecy is necessary, but too much secrecy gets innocent people hurt -- alliances between countries are one thing, but connivances are a very different thing.
For example, Wikileaks revealed recently that the US military thought the UK's military was "not up to the task" during the Iraq war. Blair was more than happy to put the UK in a costly war it had no business being in, just because he was being Bush's bitch (problem?). An unjustified war, no less. Perhaps the next time the US decides it wants to invade some random country, the UK won't be so ready to oblige without good reason. Is that really such a bad thing?
So, was Wikileaks wrong in publishing this information? True, a lot of it seems to be gossip, where some lame-brained diplomats are making inappropriate remarks about foreign leaders (whose fault is that?). Between the gossip however, there is important information that could be used to make the world a better place: for example, yesterday Wikileaks published documents that show the US army were using the British airbases in Cyprus for secret missions involving espionage and possibly torture. Is it a good or a bad thing that we know that now?
Draconian enforcement won't win you this fight, and the more you push the people, the more likely it is they'll push back. If you push past the breaking point, you risk receiving a knee-jerk reaction that strips you of all copyright privileges.
We've only seen a tiny fraction of documents this far. Most of the dirt is on foreign governments, and has mostly been about overall impressions of foreign leaders in the eyes of US diplomats. I'm sure there's less gossipy stuff to come.
Recently, I've used the word "troll" to describe two people. The first was Darryl, who I'm sure we all know but wish we didn't, and the second was Mrs Lindvall. From my perspective, both have something in common and it is NOT that they disagree with me. As Mike has pointed out, both of them take sensible arguments made by their opposing side and misrepresent them in order to annoy and antagonise -- something which I find dumb, cheap and plain disagreeable.
I (rather arrogantly) don't consider Darryl to have shown much in the lines of intelligence. Even though I don't know as much about Lindvall personally as I know about Darryl, I doubt a reputable publication such as The Guardian (with a mostly bourgeois, Lib Dem readership) would unintentionally hire a moronic drone that opposes the exact ideals that the Lib Dems championed during election time, and especially one that uses such petty discourse. For that reason, I give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's not like Darryl, but an opportunist, capitalising on the internet's great love for flame wars.
Please bear in mind that this is simply my opinion and I may be mistaken in my assessment on both counts.
Every time I read one of her articles, I find it increasingly difficult to think she really believes the stuff she says (at least not in its entirety).
I think she's just a troll-for-hire, pushing provocative ideas to get page hits. Which is fair enough, because such is the internet.
No, you won't. You'll fall in line like a nice little soldier. And even if you do stop buying clothes, you won't matter next to the millions of others who never even realise what's happening.
That's really the problem. Most people don't have a clue about what's happening, and they don't even care. How can you make people scream from the rooftops on an issue so subtle and intricate as copyright and its effects..?
Your government is not your country. If you find out that your government is doing despicable things, then the patriotic thing to do is to protect your country from your government.
I can't help but feel there's an implicit ", or else!" at the end, which was left unsaid because, well, this is politics.
It's quite clear that if Amazon sides with Wikileaks, they'll regret it down the line when the government starts piling on extra taxes and signing contracts with rival companies. It's not like Amazon or any other company or organization has any choice on this matter..
Not quite the same. It's more like "no company should be allowed to dump harmful waste in the ocean and be allowed to keep it secret". Also, there's what I call the conscientious investor's dilemma: "would you invest in a company that you know dumps harmful waste in the ocean?".
At the end of the day, governments are organisations of which we are shareholders by default, and it's our responsibility to keep them sane and moral. Unlike private companies, countries are based on ideals which governments need to respect and preserve. If they lose sight of those ideals, and we find out, we as the people of the country need to do something about it. If governments keep secrets too many secrets from their people, their people become their soldiers rather than their shareholders.
On the post: French Hosting Company Asks Judge If It's Okay To Host Wikileaks
Re:
On the post: French Hosting Company Asks Judge If It's Okay To Host Wikileaks
This entry was also hosted by EveryDNS, the same US company that had the original wikileaks.org. As I expect was the plan all along, it's quite clear now that a US company has effectively censored a Swiss address.
On the post: Russian Press And Pakistani Courts Apparently Have More Respect For Free Speech Than Joe Lieberman
Re: It will be Russia's turn soon enough
On the post: Russian Press And Pakistani Courts Apparently Have More Respect For Free Speech Than Joe Lieberman
Re: Amazing
On the post: Lieberman Introduces New Censorship Bill In Kneejerk Response To Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Diplomacy needs secrecy and lying? Scheming and manipulation need secrecy and lying, and those things go far beyond the non-violent conflict resolution that your idea of diplomacy is about. Some secrecy is necessary, but too much secrecy gets innocent people hurt -- alliances between countries are one thing, but connivances are a very different thing.
For example, Wikileaks revealed recently that the US military thought the UK's military was "not up to the task" during the Iraq war. Blair was more than happy to put the UK in a costly war it had no business being in, just because he was being Bush's bitch (problem?). An unjustified war, no less. Perhaps the next time the US decides it wants to invade some random country, the UK won't be so ready to oblige without good reason. Is that really such a bad thing?
So, was Wikileaks wrong in publishing this information? True, a lot of it seems to be gossip, where some lame-brained diplomats are making inappropriate remarks about foreign leaders (whose fault is that?). Between the gossip however, there is important information that could be used to make the world a better place: for example, yesterday Wikileaks published documents that show the US army were using the British airbases in Cyprus for secret missions involving espionage and possibly torture. Is it a good or a bad thing that we know that now?
On the post: Google Won't Recommend Most Popular Searches If It Thinks It Might Sorta Have Something To Do With Piracy
Re: Re: Who decides what Consitutes good or bad?
Changing a stupid law: Clever
Draconian enforcement won't win you this fight, and the more you push the people, the more likely it is they'll push back. If you push past the breaking point, you risk receiving a knee-jerk reaction that strips you of all copyright privileges.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?
Re: Re:
I (rather arrogantly) don't consider Darryl to have shown much in the lines of intelligence. Even though I don't know as much about Lindvall personally as I know about Darryl, I doubt a reputable publication such as The Guardian (with a mostly bourgeois, Lib Dem readership) would unintentionally hire a moronic drone that opposes the exact ideals that the Lib Dems championed during election time, and especially one that uses such petty discourse. For that reason, I give her the benefit of the doubt and say she's not like Darryl, but an opportunist, capitalising on the internet's great love for flame wars.
Please bear in mind that this is simply my opinion and I may be mistaken in my assessment on both counts.
On the post: Are Companies Scanning Open Source Commit Logs And Patenting What They Find?
On the post: Embracing New Opportunities Is Being Defeatist?
I think she's just a troll-for-hire, pushing provocative ideas to get page hits. Which is fair enough, because such is the internet.
On the post: Senate Judiciary Committee Moves Forward On Fashion Copyright
Re:
That's really the problem. Most people don't have a clue about what's happening, and they don't even care. How can you make people scream from the rooftops on an issue so subtle and intricate as copyright and its effects..?
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So goes the rhetoric, anyway.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's quite clear that if Amazon sides with Wikileaks, they'll regret it down the line when the government starts piling on extra taxes and signing contracts with rival companies. It's not like Amazon or any other company or organization has any choice on this matter..
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No secrets
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Censorship" of Wikileaks???
Plus, read my response below to the exact same asinine argument.
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: Re: No secrets
On the post: Amazon Bows To US Censorship Pressure: Refuses To Host Wikileaks
Re: Re: No secrets
At the end of the day, governments are organisations of which we are shareholders by default, and it's our responsibility to keep them sane and moral. Unlike private companies, countries are based on ideals which governments need to respect and preserve. If they lose sight of those ideals, and we find out, we as the people of the country need to do something about it. If governments keep secrets too many secrets from their people, their people become their soldiers rather than their shareholders.
Next >>