Instead of asking us to do pointless work of finding precise language in a vague bill, why don't YOU point out to me the "exact language" of the earlier Pro-IP legislation that should "effect [sic]" the website Dajaz1.
Dajaz1, for those who don't know, was seized for about a year by ICE under that legislation, also promoted by Lamar Smith.
If there is no exact language you can find that would incriminate Dajaz1, then we can reasonably conclude that these vague laws are routinely and clumsily abused by vested interests and over-reaching government agencies to stifle freedom and shut down sites unfairly.
Yes, but the era of NBC and Rupert being the only communication channel people learn from is waning.
Wikipedia and other sites are a powerful voice, too. Especially when united.
In fact, this kind of activism is the only possible antidote to getting the sheeple masses to actually understand what is at stake, and how important it is.
Are you suggesting Wikipedia not do it, and just leave that job to Rupert?
What we should really be asking if it would be irresponsible for, say, Lamar and the ITC or DOJ to black out a site for a day against the site owner's will? Say Dajaz1, just as an example.
And what if they did it for about a year instead of a day?
And what if they did it under false pretenses, a shield of secrecy, and with no explanation at all? And what if it were pretty much done just on the whim of the RIAA?
And what if it turned out they were completely wrong, and had to reverse their actions? Would that qualify as irresponsible?
You're a bad debater, and have not refuted any of my points, though you are quite certain that you have. It's two years on, so I'll just refute two of your opening arguments:
"Simple economics states that, in time, greater consumption prices will fall as competitors offer more for less"
You weren't an econ major, like I was, were you? What you have written there is wrong (also grammatically). Sure, there are volume discounts often offered for higher rates of consumption. However, what you wrote above is the opposite of the fundamental law of economics: the law of supply and demand. I had written that using more resources means there should be more cost. That's what econ is: the sensible allocation of scarce resources.
"View the latest "unlimited" data plans for $99/year by wireless providers, then see how even that is being challenged."
Well, it's 2011 now. And "unlimited" has been reduced to just Sprint. I don't see "how even that is being challenged".
Further to Masnick's point, Museums in France have a history of offering free admission, one day a week, or on special occasions. The notion being that greater exposure will only increase overall interest, increase revenues on other days, and raise the value that the culture within can offer the country and humanity.
"It is possible to bring that smile back. I got a dog. If you treat a dog right, they are friendly, loyal, hard working, and willing to give of themselves for their clan.
They're about the polar opposite of a politician."
No Way!! Not polar opposites at all. Mostly the same.
Just ask Jack Abramoff. If you treat a politician right (ie. support their re-election, offer a future job as a lobbyist, fund their SuperPAC), they are friendly, loyal, hard working (for you), and willing to give of themselves for their clan.
Are you in their clan? It's easy to tell. If you've had two or fewer closed-door meetings with the pol, then no, you are surely not.
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
""The fee structure seems to indicate that this filing could cost as little at $65.""
Well, it would cost $65, plus whatever resources it takes to constantly watch patent applications to be sure that any of your products aren't under threat.
i.e. lots of money and resources.
This is why we can argue that the patent system is a tax on innovation, and a diversion of resources from market incentives for making products, towards incentives to push paper, invest in legal services, and to lock down IP.
"If your business model relies on illegal behavior to make the profits you seek, you need to find a new and better business model."
A tautology! If YOU guys make useful technology illegal, then it will be illegal.
Should it be? That's the discussion in which we'd like to be included, both here and at the congressional level. Join us someday...or just spew BS, whatever.
Apoligist? Meh. I want to reserve my right to peacefully and lawfully interfere with somebody such that I might send a political message. I don't care about the guy in this case. I want to protect my right to expression.
When striking workers picket a plant, one of their intents is to disrupt the flow of goods and resources in and out...usually in a legal way. Can you convict them for their intent?
When workers organize a "work to rule" campaign, which means they follow every rule in the book to the letter, seriously reducing their efficiency, is it illegal because their intent is to disrupt the business?
If French farm workers drive their tractors on the Champs Elysees (legally) with the intent to disrupt traffic, is it illegal?
Hitting a publicly open and available server for information is not illegal. Doing so with intent to disrupt service should not be any more illegal.
Screw the criminals who hack PCs to make botnets. But get them for the hacking, not the DDOS. And let's protect the citizens and their right to form a true grassroots protest.
Let's say Bono of U2, a massively popular dude worldwide, says at some globally simulcast concert: "I really hate Monsanto. They make it harder for poor people to grow food. I wish that on Sunday, everybody just hit that website all day, just to bring them down a peg. I mean, we need to send them a message that the world is watching. Now, this is not a rebel song, this song is...Sunday Bloody Sunday..." and cue the Edge.
OK, so on Sunday, U2 fans from around the world, and other Monsanto haters, all ping the crap outta those servers. DDOS will result. But let's assume no botnets need be involved (it's my hypothetical case, after all).
Questions for the class:
- Is Bono a criminal for the DDOS?
- If he didn't touch one keyboard or launch one packet, how is he responsible for a DDOS?
- Did he yell "fire" in a cinema?
- Is each individual who heeded Bono's call a criminal?
- Was Bono just exercising free speech?
- Is the DDOS on Monsanto just a legal protest so that they would "hear everyone's voices" of disapproval?
Well, you're not disagreeing with me, just pointing out that a DDOS can be (and usually is) one guy with a ill-begotten botnet. I never suggested a single man with a single PC could pull a DDOS attack; if you read again, you'll see that I suggested a single man calling on 2,000 of his Twitter followers to use ALL their PCs could pull it off.
I mean, of course I know one guy with one PC can't pull off a DDOS. My comment alone shows that I'm not an idiot. The first D is for distributed, which is important because if it's just one guy, the server easily detects it is getting bombarded from that IP, and reacts by ignoring it. Similarly, filters in any ISPs along the route could also block/ignore that ping. But when the attack is Distributed, it is harder to block.
It is possible for someone with a big following to trigger a DDOS, with no bots - just many individuals actively pinging from one browser each. With enough people, DDOS!
That is to say, the illegal part is the botnet, or specifically how it is created. The DDOS part is "speech", or a picket line.
I dunno anything about this homeless guy's case. I just want to reserve the right for myself to take part in a DDOS, as just one person with one PC, someday, if I so choose.
Re: Re: Sit in protesters are arrested for trespassing
"A sit in is a form of civil protest. It is peaceful, but that doesn't mean it is legal.
Rather depends on where you sit, doesn't it."
Right. When unions go on strike, there is a reason they walk in circles. Because standing still is often loitering. But there's no law against walking on the sidewalk.
OK, so if you contribute to a traffic jam by driving. That jam then denies me my ability to run my delivery business. Did you commit a crime?
If a service is denied by virtue of offering service to any host that reaches out to it, and getting overwhelmed, which host is responsible for the denial. Every one individually? All of them in aggregate?
BTW, the use of the word "DENIAL" comes from whoever named the form of "attack". If the web community had instead called it "Distributed Overwhelming Of A Server, I Say" (DO AS I Say), would you then have called it authoritarian? It seems very arbitrary to conclude that the made up terminology precisely defines the intent of the one guy accused.
You see, THIS is the kind of stuff that makes me angry with the carriers. Invasions of privacy. The fact that this info is not disclosed to the customers.
If you lost an important Text message, do you think YOU could go to Verizon and have access to that archived information. No, silly customer. They don't retain it for YOU.
I'm often at Techdirt sticking up for the carriers, because people lob mistaken accusations at them, like "Why doesn't AT&T invest in their network?!" But here's a list of things that should make you angry:
- unnecessary retention of your data, messages, etc.
- lack of disclosure as to what your privacy rights are, how they comply with law enforcement, how hard they resist to protect your privacy.
- lack of resistance to protect your privacy
- compliance with warrantless wiretapping, for which congress gave them retroactive immunity
- most of their lobbying activity, which focuses on protecting oligopoly advantage
- SIM locking MY phone, when we already have a contract with early termination fees. Yes, the phone is subsisized, but that's because I signed your contract. It's MY phone now. I'm OK with ETFs and contracts, but then locking the phone is like tying me up with a belt AND suspenders.
- Charging extra for tethering. How is data passed through my phone different to the carrier than data passed TO my phone? I suppose with an unlimited plan, I can understand how tethering is like two people eating for one price at the all-you-can-eat buffet. But if you cap my service (which is fair), then you can't tell me what I can do with my 5GB!
- Stop stuffing our bills. Stop acting like YOUR business expenses are government fees.
- Figure out your billing, and don't waste so much of my time explaining your mistakes to you on the phone. I don't want to educate you about the difference between .01 dollars and 1 dollar. I don't want to pay twice for calls when I was roaming: once at 3:23PM in NYC, and once at 12:23PM for the same call from San Francisco. I don't want to teach you about time zones.
I'm sure there are more. Let's not waste our voices on tangential (incorrect) issues.
I'm not aware of the Kwame case at all, but if there was a warrant, the police could intercept all the messages, calls, data, and IP activity, and retain it indefinitely themselves as evidence.
The list the Masnick presents here is just what the carriers keep when there is no warrant.
A DDOS attack just means overloading a server with requests, to the point that it can't handle the requests. Mike makes a good parallel with the Obama request to overload a switchboard.
This overloaded server cannot provide service to legitimate users, thus whatever service was hosted on it is blocked. This sounds a lot like a strike picket line, an blockade, a sit in, chaining yourself to a tree, etc. Sure, it's subject to arrest if trespass if that occurs, but that's not a serious crime.
DDOS does not mean hacking in. It does not mean cracking security. It does not mean stealing information, nor providing false credentials. It does not mean sneaking past electronic locks. It just means "overwhelming". Are you guilty of DDOS when you get on the freeway and become part of a traffic jam? No.
Calling up your 2000 twitter followers to execute a DDOS does seem like free speech, or legal action to me. In fact, I don't even see any sign of trespass. The server is there to accept requests from the Net, and you are doing just that. Perhaps you would be in violation of some Terms of Service or fair use guidelines, but there's no crime in that either.
The only way DDOS should be seriously illegal is when executed with a botnet of hacked computers. At some point, those computers were illegally hacked. This, as we know, is the most common form of DDOS, but a DDOS could also be organized through computers you control legitimately, friends you organize, or a grassroots movement.
I dunno what the homeless guy in the story did, but I don't agree that DDOS is automatically a crime.
"The kid wasn't tased; he was _shot_ with a Taser."
I disagree.
A taser is very different from a gun that fires bullets.
The Inuit have a hundred words for snow, because the difference matters to them. We should probably have a few different words for police weapons, since the difference also matters a great deal.
People, like you, have an agenda when they try to change language to be less specific. You do so because your agenda is served by a conflagration of two different things. But specific language is far more useful, and more descriptive of truth and reality. By using "tased" there is no confusion about which weapon the cop ABused.
Let people argue about whether tasers are lethal or not. Let them argue about whether that was too much force or not. But don't try to change the terminology to make it sound worse.
I've seem a similar effort to expand the definition of "rape" to include things like molestation or groping. While I sympathize with the intent of the people using the word incorrectly, I do not agree with making language less specific, and less useful to suit any political agenda.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Also, you think nobody commits murder because there are laws against it?
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Dajaz1, for those who don't know, was seized for about a year by ICE under that legislation, also promoted by Lamar Smith.
If there is no exact language you can find that would incriminate Dajaz1, then we can reasonably conclude that these vague laws are routinely and clumsily abused by vested interests and over-reaching government agencies to stifle freedom and shut down sites unfairly.
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re: Re:
Wikipedia and other sites are a powerful voice, too. Especially when united.
In fact, this kind of activism is the only possible antidote to getting the sheeple masses to actually understand what is at stake, and how important it is.
Are you suggesting Wikipedia not do it, and just leave that job to Rupert?
On the post: Lamar Smith & MPAA Brush Off Wikipedia Blackout As Just A Publicity Stunt
Re: Re:
What we should really be asking if it would be irresponsible for, say, Lamar and the ITC or DOJ to black out a site for a day against the site owner's will? Say Dajaz1, just as an example.
And what if they did it for about a year instead of a day?
And what if they did it under false pretenses, a shield of secrecy, and with no explanation at all? And what if it were pretty much done just on the whim of the RIAA?
And what if it turned out they were completely wrong, and had to reverse their actions? Would that qualify as irresponsible?
On the post: It's Official: Wikipedia To Go Dark On Wednesday
Wikipedia: You Win 2 Internets
On the post: Why Internet Companies And Content Companies Should Oppose Broadband Caps
Re: Re: I Disagree With Mike - Pay To Play
"Simple economics states that, in time, greater consumption prices will fall as competitors offer more for less"
You weren't an econ major, like I was, were you? What you have written there is wrong (also grammatically). Sure, there are volume discounts often offered for higher rates of consumption. However, what you wrote above is the opposite of the fundamental law of economics: the law of supply and demand. I had written that using more resources means there should be more cost. That's what econ is: the sensible allocation of scarce resources.
"View the latest "unlimited" data plans for $99/year by wireless providers, then see how even that is being challenged."
Well, it's 2011 now. And "unlimited" has been reduced to just Sprint. I don't see "how even that is being challenged".
On the post: Sarkozy Worried About The Internet 'Stealing Audience Share' From 'Regulated' TV Services
Re: It's simple
http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/04/us-france-museums-idUSL1841277820080104
On the post: For VPN Provider HideMyNet DMCA's ABC's Not As Easy As 123
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Rule #1
They're about the polar opposite of a politician."
No Way!! Not polar opposites at all. Mostly the same.
Just ask Jack Abramoff. If you treat a politician right (ie. support their re-election, offer a future job as a lobbyist, fund their SuperPAC), they are friendly, loyal, hard working (for you), and willing to give of themselves for their clan.
Are you in their clan? It's easy to tell. If you've had two or fewer closed-door meetings with the pol, then no, you are surely not.
On the post: Luma Labs Discontinues Popular Product Line After Competitor Gets A Patent... Despite Prior Art Going Back Over A Century
Re: Re: If they were aware it was pending, why didn't they fight it?
Well, it would cost $65, plus whatever resources it takes to constantly watch patent applications to be sure that any of your products aren't under threat.
i.e. lots of money and resources.
This is why we can argue that the patent system is a tax on innovation, and a diversion of resources from market incentives for making products, towards incentives to push paper, invest in legal services, and to lock down IP.
On the post: An Open Letter To Chris Dodd: Silicon Valley Can't Help Hollywood If You First Cripple It With Bad Regulation
Re: Circular arguments
A tautology! If YOU guys make useful technology illegal, then it will be illegal.
Should it be? That's the discussion in which we'd like to be included, both here and at the congressional level. Join us someday...or just spew BS, whatever.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: Re: Re: DENIAL of service
When striking workers picket a plant, one of their intents is to disrupt the flow of goods and resources in and out...usually in a legal way. Can you convict them for their intent?
When workers organize a "work to rule" campaign, which means they follow every rule in the book to the letter, seriously reducing their efficiency, is it illegal because their intent is to disrupt the business?
If French farm workers drive their tractors on the Champs Elysees (legally) with the intent to disrupt traffic, is it illegal?
Hitting a publicly open and available server for information is not illegal. Doing so with intent to disrupt service should not be any more illegal.
Screw the criminals who hack PCs to make botnets. But get them for the hacking, not the DDOS. And let's protect the citizens and their right to form a true grassroots protest.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
A Theoretical Case
OK, so on Sunday, U2 fans from around the world, and other Monsanto haters, all ping the crap outta those servers. DDOS will result. But let's assume no botnets need be involved (it's my hypothetical case, after all).
Questions for the class:
- Is Bono a criminal for the DDOS?
- If he didn't touch one keyboard or launch one packet, how is he responsible for a DDOS?
- Did he yell "fire" in a cinema?
- Is each individual who heeded Bono's call a criminal?
- Was Bono just exercising free speech?
- Is the DDOS on Monsanto just a legal protest so that they would "hear everyone's voices" of disapproval?
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: Re: DDOS Doesn't Require Hacking
I mean, of course I know one guy with one PC can't pull off a DDOS. My comment alone shows that I'm not an idiot. The first D is for distributed, which is important because if it's just one guy, the server easily detects it is getting bombarded from that IP, and reacts by ignoring it. Similarly, filters in any ISPs along the route could also block/ignore that ping. But when the attack is Distributed, it is harder to block.
It is possible for someone with a big following to trigger a DDOS, with no bots - just many individuals actively pinging from one browser each. With enough people, DDOS!
That is to say, the illegal part is the botnet, or specifically how it is created. The DDOS part is "speech", or a picket line.
I dunno anything about this homeless guy's case. I just want to reserve the right for myself to take part in a DDOS, as just one person with one PC, someday, if I so choose.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: Re: Sit in protesters are arrested for trespassing
Rather depends on where you sit, doesn't it."
Right. When unions go on strike, there is a reason they walk in circles. Because standing still is often loitering. But there's no law against walking on the sidewalk.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
Re: DENIAL of service
If a service is denied by virtue of offering service to any host that reaches out to it, and getting overwhelmed, which host is responsible for the denial. Every one individually? All of them in aggregate?
BTW, the use of the word "DENIAL" comes from whoever named the form of "attack". If the web community had instead called it "Distributed Overwhelming Of A Server, I Say" (DO AS I Say), would you then have called it authoritarian? It seems very arbitrary to conclude that the made up terminology precisely defines the intent of the one guy accused.
On the post: DOJ Document Shows How Long Telcos Hold Onto Your Data
Angry With The Carriers
If you lost an important Text message, do you think YOU could go to Verizon and have access to that archived information. No, silly customer. They don't retain it for YOU.
I'm often at Techdirt sticking up for the carriers, because people lob mistaken accusations at them, like "Why doesn't AT&T invest in their network?!" But here's a list of things that should make you angry:
- unnecessary retention of your data, messages, etc.
- lack of disclosure as to what your privacy rights are, how they comply with law enforcement, how hard they resist to protect your privacy.
- lack of resistance to protect your privacy
- compliance with warrantless wiretapping, for which congress gave them retroactive immunity
- most of their lobbying activity, which focuses on protecting oligopoly advantage
- SIM locking MY phone, when we already have a contract with early termination fees. Yes, the phone is subsisized, but that's because I signed your contract. It's MY phone now. I'm OK with ETFs and contracts, but then locking the phone is like tying me up with a belt AND suspenders.
- Charging extra for tethering. How is data passed through my phone different to the carrier than data passed TO my phone? I suppose with an unlimited plan, I can understand how tethering is like two people eating for one price at the all-you-can-eat buffet. But if you cap my service (which is fair), then you can't tell me what I can do with my 5GB!
- Stop stuffing our bills. Stop acting like YOUR business expenses are government fees.
- Figure out your billing, and don't waste so much of my time explaining your mistakes to you on the phone. I don't want to educate you about the difference between .01 dollars and 1 dollar. I don't want to pay twice for calls when I was roaming: once at 3:23PM in NYC, and once at 12:23PM for the same call from San Francisco. I don't want to teach you about time zones.
I'm sure there are more. Let's not waste our voices on tangential (incorrect) issues.
On the post: DOJ Document Shows How Long Telcos Hold Onto Your Data
Re: Really?
The list the Masnick presents here is just what the carriers keep when there is no warrant.
On the post: Lawyer For Accused: DDoS Is A Legal Form Of Protest
DDOS Doesn't Require Hacking
This overloaded server cannot provide service to legitimate users, thus whatever service was hosted on it is blocked. This sounds a lot like a strike picket line, an blockade, a sit in, chaining yourself to a tree, etc. Sure, it's subject to arrest if trespass if that occurs, but that's not a serious crime.
DDOS does not mean hacking in. It does not mean cracking security. It does not mean stealing information, nor providing false credentials. It does not mean sneaking past electronic locks. It just means "overwhelming". Are you guilty of DDOS when you get on the freeway and become part of a traffic jam? No.
Calling up your 2000 twitter followers to execute a DDOS does seem like free speech, or legal action to me. In fact, I don't even see any sign of trespass. The server is there to accept requests from the Net, and you are doing just that. Perhaps you would be in violation of some Terms of Service or fair use guidelines, but there's no crime in that either.
The only way DDOS should be seriously illegal is when executed with a botnet of hacked computers. At some point, those computers were illegally hacked. This, as we know, is the most common form of DDOS, but a DDOS could also be organized through computers you control legitimately, friends you organize, or a grassroots movement.
I dunno what the homeless guy in the story did, but I don't agree that DDOS is automatically a crime.
On the post: Police Caught Tasing Teen Without Warning
Re: semantics are everything
I disagree.
A taser is very different from a gun that fires bullets.
The Inuit have a hundred words for snow, because the difference matters to them. We should probably have a few different words for police weapons, since the difference also matters a great deal.
People, like you, have an agenda when they try to change language to be less specific. You do so because your agenda is served by a conflagration of two different things. But specific language is far more useful, and more descriptive of truth and reality. By using "tased" there is no confusion about which weapon the cop ABused.
Let people argue about whether tasers are lethal or not. Let them argue about whether that was too much force or not. But don't try to change the terminology to make it sound worse.
I've seem a similar effort to expand the definition of "rape" to include things like molestation or groping. While I sympathize with the intent of the people using the word incorrectly, I do not agree with making language less specific, and less useful to suit any political agenda.
On the post: Criticize The Better Business Bureau... And They'll Pull Your Accreditation
Re: Re: Re:
Next >>