Government Takes Control Of The Net; 2000 In Review 175
An Anonymous Coward (what, nobody reads The Economist?) sends us this excellent piece: "This is a review of several developments in internet regulation, pointing out several ironies and possibilities, quite lucid and clear. Stop Signs on the Web." There are a lot of thoughtful points in this article - it bears a thorough reading. It is my belief that the end of online "freedom" is just around the corner, and I think this article lays out a number of the forces that are going to cause that to happen.
Re:A Dose of Realism (Score:1)
I submit to you that the forces carving up the Net and installing toll booths, ticket boxes, meters, tracking databases everywhere, turning it into basically interactive TV, but all under their control, for the purpose of milking mindless consumers, are the ones you should be concerned, not the collectively anarchistic activities of users who actually go out and create stuff.
I had no particular qualm with their activities as long as they abided by the same rules as the rest of us. But they didn't. They are the ones who won't play by the rules. Not us. They are the ones who brought in the lawyers, the polictians, the goons. The ones who use coercion and fear.
So excuse me, Mr. Dana Andrews, sir, but with all due respect, fuck that noise.
Rogue Bolo
an idea perhaps... (Score:1)
1. Free, High Quality networking software is completely available now. No software company(s) can prevent us from using good software.
2. Hardware companies are actually quite unrestrictive of the use of their products. With the exception of this ATA copy protection scheme, no one gives a flying f**k what you do with servers, routers, etc, provided you paid for, and own them.
3. We can organise the hiarchy any way we want. Want different TLD's? IPV6? Totally different protocol? A democratic organization that makes changes, not a conglomerate of clueless people? With exception of copyright law and other issues that also exist in meatspace, the rules for this new internet could be set by nerds for nerds, DEMOCRATICALLY. I for one would like to have a basic competency exam to be included in this "exclusive" internet club. Topics on the exam could include networking and OS fundamentals and programming. Respect could be fostered through mutual expertise and fraternity.
4. Our only problem would be aquiring large quantities of bandwidth. This is quite expensive of course. Basically, everyone involved would have to share the cost of this - perhaps higher fees to be a part of this organization, or a resurgence of dial up. Perhaps we could implement a system that people pay for bandwidth they use. Email is almost free, but if you are running video you pay more.
I'm just ranting now I think, but I really miss the days where the internet was full of good research information, quality discussion forums, and not tons of glitzy corporate flash pages.
Old internet hippie...
Re:over in the US, you've got it easy (Score:1)
~~~
Re:For a good time `whois paranoia.com` (Score:1)
~~~
Internet Law (Score:1)
There is no such thing as a free lunch.
The law of internet:
There is no such thing as free information.
True for both meanings of "free", 'cos money equals access.
But don't get really upset about it, it just means that the world hasn't changed. And that's not very surprising.
Why you maybe don't open the [...] door (Score:1)
If this is true, your home may no longer be your castle unless you put a moat around it, and be awfully careful who you lower the drawbridge to.
block by default, but allow access on request (Score:1)
Does anybody do this? Has this ever been suggested as a way to satisfy the raving lunatics who go nuts when they hear there is a non-zero chance (no matter how small) of someone _else_ seeing something they _themselves_ wouldn't like to see. (or maybe they would like to see pr0n, but don't want to talk about it...
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re:Anonymous Coward? (Score:1)
"Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life."
Re: Myanmar, Woah! (Score:1)
I guess net access is not on the top of the peoples list of priorities somehow ;)
Of course, the Internet is banned because in such a society it can help the people achieve freedom by acting as a relatively safe channel for the voice of dissent and counter-propoganda.
In a liberated society, the Internet becomes means to different ends. Like pr0n, mp3s and general timewasting on a scale never before dreamed of by our forefathers. How can we stand idly by while people across the world are deprived of such things?
Mind you, we should also consider the other countries where people may be prosecuted for Internet activities such as posting details of politicians' business interests. Such as most of Europe - at least according to the C4 [channel4.com] Mark Thomas Product programme here in .uk, who's latest site http://www.mepsinterests.com [mepsinterests.com] looks like it's been nobbled. Technical difficulties my arse.
Perhaps we should ask India to invade us too?
Dave
Re: purpose of laws. (Score:1)
Re:It took a hundred years... (Score:1)
Exactly. The Bible. In German instead of Latin. Which meant that a lot more people could read it for themselves instead of having to accept what the priest said was in it. Now untrained laymen could actually argue with the Church over the meanings of passages, and make up their own minds! Horrors!
It's not entirely coincidental that the Protestant Reformation kicked off not long after the deployment of the printing press. (Admittedly, more directly due to the fact that Luther's points got spread a lot more widely than he originally expected due to some helpful reprinting...)
-- Bryan Feir
Re:A Couple of Nits to Pick (Score:1)
Bzzzzt. Who the hell said anything about filtering? Something as simple as "Sir, if you're not using the computer for research, we'd appreciate it if you would free it up for other patrons" would work. Besides, what about open source? How about one library system implements a decent set of filtering software, and just gives it away?
Are you aware of some legal ruling about libraries in general that backs this up, or a you just stating something you think makes sense? The computers and computing resources belong to the library; they are entirely within their rights to set rules for their use. Libraries do this all the time. You can only check out books for a certain period of time (shorter times for the more popular books). You can't check out magazines or newspapers at all. Books in certain collections cannot leave the library, period. Some books just aren't available, period. None of these are censorship, just a library trying to make sure that the majority of it's patrons benefit from it's services.
Yah, I know. Computers aren't like books, yadda yadda yadda. You're absolutely right. They're not. The fundamentals of the situation remain the same: the library owns the resources, and set the rules regarding their uses. If monitoring usage, or filtering web access, or the like helps make computers more useful to the majority of their patrons, they'll do it.
IMHO, most libraires and librarians don't want to have to get to the point where they need to put the computers out in the open, with filtering software installed and someone constantly monitoring them. They want to let reasonable people behave reasonably. If you're familiar with the tragedy of the commons, though, then you know that even resonable people can be unreasonable when it comes to managing a shared resource like a public library or public computers.
Re:A Couple of Nits to Pick (Score:1)
Re:A Couple of Nits to Pick (Score:1)
I've worked in a library - every librarian, like it or not, is a censor. They don't mean to be... but there is no library in existance that has the unlimited funding it would take to carry all available materials.
So the librarians have to decide what new books they will purchase; what old, damaged books will be replaced; what old, damaged books can be repaired; and then do the same thing for video tapes... audio books... software... magazine subscriptions... newspaper subscriptions... and now, their computing resources.
If your local librarian doesn't think it's worth spending his/her limited budget on, then it won't be available in your local library. It's a kind of censorship - someone else telling you what you will or won't have access to They're generally unwilling to carry subscriptions to Playboy (or Hustler or whatever your favorite skin mag is), and the vast majority of the public views this type of "censorship" as a good and right way for them to make use of a limited funds in order to do their job.
So... tell me why a library's effort to make the same kind of decision about how to make use of limited computing resources in the same situation is viewed as unacceptable?
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:1)
Verbal assault, libel, slander, lewd/indecent behavior, stalking, usery for starters, are "crimes", which in and of themselves cause no physical consequence. Yes, some of them are associated with other crimes as well. Protections given by law are not, and i don't think they ever were, meant to be solely of a physical nature. They're their to promote and in effect attempt to enforce responsible actions. In a world of 6 billion people, or a country of 260 million, or a city of 5 million, or even a town of 250, there need to be rules in effect to make sure people are safe in not only a physical nature, but in a mental state as well... And as a species, we're just not responsible enough to live without rules and standards for decency. Yes, they vary from locale to locale, but we all have certain codes of conduct that are generally abided by in each given community.
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:1)
I was just at the Liberterian Party's [lp.org] website earlier on today for a completely unrelated purpose, but i'm of the belief that either your misinterpretting their message if you believe the above behaviors should be condoned and accepted, or else the party itself is rather baseless... I'm not believing the latter, so please review your stances...
Re:The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:1)
And the only way to do the latter is to cause them financial harm. Corporations must ultimately be responsible to their shareholders, and their shareholders demand profits.
So you need to get serious about boycotting, serious about spreading the boycott, and serious about letting the Corporations know that you're boycotting them, and what they need to do differently to win back your financial support.
If you don't like the restrictions placed on you by the content creators then DON'T UTILIZE THEIR SERVICES! Don't listen to the music, don't watch the movies, don't use the software. That is the only lawful, moral and ethical way to cause them financial harm.
Umm, what do you think a boycott is? He/she is advocating exactly what you told him/her to do. Sometimes I think a mandatory reading comprehension test should be required to post on /..
You are a parasite. We don't need parasites in our society, as they provide no value.
And you are an obediant little slave of the corporations and what they say is right. Refusing to question, or to even concider the idea that there might be a better way. We don't need people like you in our society, as they actually provide *negative* value.
-WintermuteI feeel sorry for you now... (Score:1)
MY BAD (Score:1)
Re:Only the beginning... (Score:1)
Re:The right to seek relief (Score:1)
Not directly, but the thing that has changed is the raw number of potential international transactions, when any individual can do business with any other individual around the world. If ten years ago there were say 50,000 international copyright violation lawsuits worldwide, there could potentially be as many as 5 million brought this year. Just the change in scale of the cross-boundary traffic requires a new, more efficient protocol. Not that I have any idea what it should be.
--
Anonymous Coward? (Score:1)
its seems that Philip Gross doensnt want the
I think theeconomist will get a lot of hist from him today. "Logged in as Philip Gross "
This raises another point: Why isnt theeconomist using cookies and puts the userid in the URI?
Re:Anonymous Coward? (Score:1)
> broken here
weird indeed. On the other hand, think about it when something like that will hapen to the
Will people behave differnt logged in as someone else? Flame? Troll?
Actually it would be an interesting social experiment to let people log in as someone else on aprils fool!
Re:Unfortunately, it's true (Score:1)
Re:The most interesting commet (Score:2)
Obviously, you have never looked into the history of the FBI. I recommend that you pay particular attention to the tactics of J. Edgar Hoover, his "G-Men", and Hoover's rise to prominence, fighting -or assassinating as some might say- gangs of bank robbers and assorted hoodlums in the 20s and 30s.
While I am in complete agreement that our sphere of civil liberty is being eroded through bad laws (the drug war) and the development of ever more sophisticated ever more pervasive surveillance and data archiving, tracking and interpretation, the Golden-Age of American law enforcement you want us to believe in simply did not exist.
Look into the actions of local/state/federal police in breaking up unions, leftwing political groups, civil rights and or black community organizations. Law enforcement today is more accountable than at many periods in the past. Not saying it's perfect or that systemic abuses of civil liberities aren't common - they are. There is also massive injustice not just in the enforcement of laws but in the nature of many laws themselves (drug laws, mandatory minimum sentencing and other nightmares promulgated by social conservatives) But that's nothing new either. The idea that the past was some uncorrupted age of American Enlightenment is just laughable. Some people are probably just noticing police "over-zealousness" now because there are some prominent cases where the feds tried to take away somebody's precious unlicensed illegal weapons/explosives (somebody white and right like themselves) and ended up shooting it out with the as-yet unarrested suspects (who generally let it be known that they would not be taken alive). Same shit different decade.
In the days-gone-by of our grandparents the Law men would not wear hoods or masks (unless they were in the KKK) but instead they would pose for photographs next to the bullet ridden carcasses of the outlaws and point to their handiwork. What they didn't have to fear then was criminals targetting them for murder in cold blood. That's no joke as you would know if you've read reports of criminal activities in Italy, Latin America, Asia and Russia.
(btw: those cases of BATF / FBI agents killing innocent people at Waco and Ruby RIdge? When the law comes to your house, YOU OPEN THE MOTHERFUCKING DOOR, whatever you may think about the law you may or may not have been breaking, or the people enforcing it. When you know as Randy Weaver did, that you were caught redhanded making illegal firearms, and you refuse to cooperate with the feds and entrap your Neo-Nazi gun customers, you DON'T refuse to surrender to the authorities and set about arming your children and posting them as sentries outside your house. Not unless you want them dead. When you know, as D. Koresh absolutely did, that the BATF is coming, has in fact been surveilling your premises at close range for weeks and is sweating all your firearm sales contacts, you OPEN the door when they come, and record on video/audio tape all that transpires. Everybody lives and you get your day in court. (Everything people criticize the BATF for concerning that raid is valid, but none of it exonerates Koresh one fucking bit).
If you OPEN FIRE INSTEAD as all those guys did either directly or through subordinates, you ARE going to get shot, dummy ! OK, no big loss to society or injustice if you choose to shoot it out with the Marshall and die, but the innocent people in your company are in danger of being killed or wounded, too.)
Spam is not inevitable (Score:2)
--
Re:The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:2)
Maybe you read a different post than you replied to, FFFish didn't argue for legitimized theft. He argued for boycotting industries whose behavoir he didn't agree with. Just like you asked. Perhaps you're replying to "The government never gave two shakes about whether you and I swapped software, music or video." Actually, swapping music and video is still (basically) legal. Copyright was never intended to restrict sale, trade, or gifting of materials, but to restrict copying (thus the copy in copyright). Swapping copies is restricted, but he never said he was doing so.
He's not whining that the RIAA, MPAA, and SIIA are "protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right." He's complaining that those organization are trying to pervert the constitution. Copyright was supposed to be granted for a limited time. Thanks to the recent extensions on the terms, I don't anticipate ever seeing the copyright expire on anything created during my lifetime. Or my parents lifetime. I'm pretty sure that's not what our forefathers meant by limited. Thanks to the DMCA, anything on a medium with access controls is effectively protected forever. Maybe I can legally copy it after copyright expires, but I can't legally create or purchase tools to do the copying.
These organizations are attempting to steal our right to resell our copies of music, movies, or software. Our rights to timeshift media, to translate a media's format, to watch media on whatever technology we like.
These organizations aren't protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right. Please, take a look at the constitution [nara.gov]. There isn't much in there about rights granted to people or corporations. It's mostly about the rights that the government has. The single, lonely sentence in question simply says "The Congress shall have Power..." "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;". Yippee. Congress can choose to create copyright. They did choose to do so. They can just as easily choose to undo it. This isn't a protected right. It's right up there with Congress's power to create a post office system. If you're going to claim that the US was founded on intellectual property, you're also going to have to claim that the US was founded on establishing the USMail.
If you're looking for guaranteed rights for the people, you'll need to take a peek at the amendments [nara.gov]. The concept of intellectual property didn't seem to make the list.
Re:The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:2)
What I clearly stated is that getting upset with the government is wrong-headed, because it's owned by the Corporations. Not having the ability to influence our own government, we must instead influence the Corporations.
It's only by entering a dialog with the Corporations that we will achieve a mutually-beneficial compromise. And the only way to get the Corporations to enter a dialog (instead of bumfucking us by purchasing our government from us) is to boycott them and write a letter telling them why you're boycotting them and what they can do differently to win your support back.
This is *not* saying that the Corporations must support rampant piracy.
Now, if you're perfectly happy to allow Corporations to buy your government from you, and perfectly happy to have those Corporations purchase draconian laws that may or may not harm your ability to use the products you purchase, then you are perfectly free to not boycott those Corporations. In fact, it is your duty to send them an extra twenty bucks, to help them achieve your goals.
For the rest of us, it is imperative that we (a) educate ourselves regarding the political and social actions taken by Corporations; (b) consciously decide to support or not support them, by purchasing or steadfastedly not purchasing their products; and (c) spreading the word.
If we do not become active consumers, we will become passive slaves to Corporate desires.
--
Re:old news (Score:2)
How is it you are managing to post to slashdot with a user account then? Junkbuster (for unix) and Proximitron (for windows) offer a slightly more configurable solution than this shotgun approach.
--
Re:old news (Score:2)
I have used proximotron for windows and yes it can filter out more data, but some websites don't work if you do that. This way you loose nothing in the viewing and when you revist a site after restarting the browser they have to reset all the cookies all over again. This is good inviting sites like doubleclick.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
old news (Score:2)
What the article leaves out is what is already being done on the web. Doublecklick has already mapped out many ip addresses on the web. What does this mean and why? When they get some one to advertise with them the advertiser can get where you came from on the planet from your IP address. While this is not fool proof, it is a start. (See the articles mention of the ip 'spoofing' i.e. surfing anonymously). They also don't mention how many sites are using cookies to track people. Again I can mention doubleclick, who puts a cookie on your system and then tracks it ALL over the web. (Unless you are like me and has done a chmod 400 on your cookies file .. see linux.com for more info on that).
Furthermore they don't mention how US companies are watching their employees, by monitoring the traffic going in and out of the corporate firewall. And yes I have known people who have gotton in trouble cause they did't know they were 'being watched'. This is really not 'new' it was happening back in 1997, at many companies when intranets took of and LANS became the 'standard' way of a company operating.
While this article is definately worth a read, I think that many regular /. readers already know most of this stuf anyway. This is actually the kind of article that needs to be put in newspapers like the NY Times as well as the Wall Street Journal and soe other papers, so that not just techies know about this.
Personally I think that it is just going to get worse too. People are going to demand more and better filtering software. Maybe a good business to get into too. 'Content Filtering'. Only problem is that once you learn how to filter you learn that their are ways around the filters as well.
It is like building a mouse trap. The minute you think you have a perfect trap, you end up with smarter mice.
Hopefully I will still be around when the human race evolves and realizes that it is just content and that it means nothing, but then again I live in a world that believes that 'God' is a being and not a concept. Some people will never get it.
I don't want a lot, I just want it all!
Flame away, I have a hose!
Re:Only the beginning... (Score:2)
--
Absolutely false. (Score:2)
In all the times I've read The Federalist Papers, I have yet to find a single passage that suggests intellectual property is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution. Would you please be so kind as to point out which essay it is that I've been missing?
It is a protected right by grant of the US Constitution
Laughably false. The intellectual-property provisions of the Constitution say that Congress may grant legal protections to IP. Contrast this to the Bill of Rights, which are phrased as absolute contructs--Congress shall not, will not, must not, cannot, etc.
That single word, may, says that IP is not a right. Period.
That is the only lawful, moral and ethical way to cause them financial harm
According to your morality, perhaps. But as Trent Castanaveras explained in The Long Run, there are really only a few ways to make someone change their behavior. You can persuade them; you can bribe them; you can threaten them; or you can steal from them.
Some people can't be persuaded; they're too blinded by their passions, their ideology, whatever, to listen to the sweet voice of Reason. Some people can't be bribed; they just don't put much emphasis on money, or they're already so wealthy that whatever you can offer them is insignificant. Some people can't be threatened; either they don't care about the pain, or they're so much stronger than you that you can't threaten them. But theft... theft is something which people must respond to. It's a Darwinian thing, hard-coded into our genes. The more resources we lose, the less fit we are to continue existence, thus, every creature seeks to minimize its loss of resources.
So when you're faced with an adversary who is doing something wrong, something which is affecting your own interests adversely, and you feel that things need to, must, change... well. Considering that the MPAA/RIAA doesn't listen to reason (look at the 2600 suit), we can't bribe them (they're already rich), we can't threaten them with legal action (they can afford lawyers, we can't), what other form of persuasion is left to us besides theft?
Not reckless theft. Not blind theft. Theft of the right things, in the right ways, at the right time. If the MPAA wants to enforce CSS, great; we circulate DeCSS and encourage people to rip copies of their CSS-scrambled movies. But if we were also to encourage people to rip copies of movies which are not CSS-scrambled (for instance, American Pie), then we would be sending the wrong message. If we respect the idea of IP ownership for technologies which respect us, and we openly subvert technologies which do not respect us, that sends a strong and clear message--if you respect us, this all will stop.
Illegal copying of CSS-scrambled and non-CSS scrambled movies would be punishment, nothing more. People don't respond well to punishment. Illegal copying of CSS-scrambled movies is negative reinforcement--"don't do this, do the other thing instead". Negative reinforcement works a lot better than punishment.
You are a parasite
And you're a blithering idiot for believing that IP is a Constitutionally-protected right.
It's always been govt controlled, now you know it (Score:2)
What has changed is that we now have the tools and the know-how in the civilian world to become aware of many of these methods.
I'm not suggesting one become paranoid, I'm just saying that privacy and even secure communications are not truly used or available for most people. If one were to use a secure transmission from a secure terminal to another secure terminal where no cache writes occurred and where the private and public keys were exchanged in a secure manner, one might attain such a level of security.
That said, 90 percent of the secret and higher message traffic is totally boring and frequently wrong, so for the average person, I really wouldn't worry about it.
Your best method of attack is to keep pushing on legislation guaranteeing our rights to privacy and the ability to request information kept about yourself, for networks, for providers, for companies (who are the worst offenders in privacy), and for government agencies.
Re:Yahoo shines in the Article (Score:2)
Re:The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:2)
This is preposterous -- deny corporations the ability to weild the government as a weapon, and all they can do to anybody who isn't an employee is make bad faces at them.
/.
Re:Another Bad "Economist" article (Score:2)
When private ISPs first connected to it, of course. When it was run purely by government agencies for government purposes, those agencies had the right to control it for the same reason I have the right to control the use of the computer sitting in front of me. Once that situation changed, the government lost this property-based right, and has no such right on any other basis.
the idea that the purpose of the Internet was such an anarchy was a self-appointed decision by anti-establishment people who imposed their own social agenda on a communication medium
Insofar as I can parse this statement, it seems to be asserting that some anacho-fascist cabal forcibly imposed the agenda of rejecting all forcibly imposed agendas.
They acted without authority
They acted without authority to impose an absence of authority?
My brain hurts.
and today scream with indignation when governments exercise their due powers
Er, the claim that censorship is part of any government's "due powers" is what you're required to prove before your argument can be taken seriously.
anarchic rules
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means.
I should not have to tell you that a great many things done on the Internet are irresponsible, reprehensible and damaging to the interests of others
You have misframed the argument in a manner which avoids the issue. If I say that you seem profoundly clueless, that may be irresponsible and reprehensible, and insofar as anybody believes me it is certainly damaging to your interests, but you really have no recourse except to offer a rebuttal. If, on the other hand, I say something actionable, you do have recourse, because I would then be violating your rights, not your far more expansive "interests".
They ignore the fact that when any tool or system becomes destructive of our society, we have the right to disband or destroy that tool or system.
No, you don't.
For examples, the Industrial Revolution was destructive of the existing pre-industrial society, and yet Luddite mobs had no right to "disband or destroy" the private property of the industrialists.
I won't feel sorrow if the government regulates Internet content, provided that it is in keeping with the laws of our nation.
Er, "Congress shall make no law...." IS the law of our nation.
/.
Re:Only the beginning... (Score:2)
Re:Imperialism (Score:2)
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
Re:Myanmar, Woah! (Score:2)
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
Libertarianism is a political theory. The Liberterian Party, like all political parties, has a strategic goal and they make compromises to achieve that goal. There are a lot of people who call themselves liberterians, but they all agree on one thing, you may not use force (including the force of the state) to forward your views and it is the responsibility of government to hold the only force in society, and that is the force to jail those who use force on other members of the society. This is called the "minimalist state" or the "night watch-man of the libertarian state".
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
You dont have to tell me that this isn't the way it has been throughout history. Some people have made the concious choice to deny the past and live life free. The rest of the flock have just bummed along, we have to fight for them too.
Re:Free (Score:2)
Re: Myanmar, Woah! (Score:2)
Myanmar, Woah! (Score:2)
Anyone in Myanmar [cia.gov] care to comment on this? But seriously, I can't believe this. 41 million people are living in this country under a military regime. 30% of the population is under 15 years of age. They have adequate and wide spread communications including long distance communications. Neighbouring India, do these folks a favour, invade and give em some net access!
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
Re:Myanmar, Woah! (Score:2)
Re:Imperialism (Score:2)
It took a hundred years... (Score:2)
On this timeline, I'd say that we're probably about year 80.. We're nearing the time when entrenched interests, like the crown, are threatened and trying to repel the danger through banning the 'misuses' of the new technology. [DMCA, UCITA, CSS on DVD's, and all the rest.]
Re:Jefferson said it best ... (Score:2)
See the
Jefferson said it best ... (Score:2)
Franklin said the same thing (Score:2)
IPv6 (Score:2)
So IPv6 is a feature? I always thought it's a protocol
There are no more privacy issues with IPv6 (read: no more than there are with IPv4 *g*).
Read the comments to this AskSlashdot [slashdot.org] to gain enlightenment
The IP doesn't NEED to contain the MAC; THAT's just an optional feature
Re:The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:2)
Intellectual property is NOT a right granted by the US Constitution. The constitution grants Congress the power to grant limited monopolies on works, such as copyrights, patents, and trademarks. The issue of owning these things outright never came up, and in fact was one of the things the founders of the USA wanted to avoid.
IP is a fiction, and a really nasty one. Copyright is a limited monopoly, trademarks are nothing of the sort, and patents are even more of a monopoly than copyright is.
-RickHunter
Re:If things go bad... (Score:2)
People are too damned lazy and short of attention span to fight for freedom or for that matter, privacy. Make no mistake--about 85% of the population in the western world WILL quietly accept graver and graver restrictions on their internet access until they view exactly what the government and corporations tell them to.
Re:If things go bad... (Score:2)
I've been proclaiming for years how much better the internet was when we had usenet, archie, etc.; and before the commercial WWW became synonymous with 'the net.'
But at the same time, we have to ask ourselves: Do we want the internet (in whatever form, be it the web or IP-enabled BBSes) to be a perfect medium loaded with smart (although somewhat diverse) people, or do we want to effect wholescale social change? If the latter, then we HAVE to get it to the masses. If the former, then it's just a toy.
Tough call, either way.
Re:Franklin said the same thing (Score:2)
Re:Flawed perspective? (Score:2)
look at the way yahoo! auctions caved. why didn't they put nazi auctions in a private area where you have to agree to some kind of EULA to get in?
the government does not work in a vacuum. no one in the government just got up one day and said "hey, i know, let's make all the schools and libraries put filtering s/w on their machines"
instead, it was a mob of parents and special interests who decided to lobby the government to create these laws.
unless people use education, and unless the web puts content behind EULAs, the blunt instrument of government regulation will fall.
let's face it -- a fifteen year old is seconds away from porn when they sit at the net right now. That's what's killing the net -- providers failing to adequately filter their content.
i was at office depot the other day, and they had a display of filtering software surrounded by fat, angry looking women. that pretty much says it all.
Re:The most interesting commet (Score:2)
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
Then clearly the personal computer is a wild frontier too -- I mean look at all those Linux distros. ANYONE can put one out. That's not right!
We should welcome the "civilization" of the home computer as well. Thank goodness we have Microsoft and other big businesses to help us with this.
More on Hague Conference (Score:2)
Jamie Love and the U.S. Consumer Project on Technology have done an outstanding job at http://www.cptech.org/ecom/jurisdiction/hague.html [cptech.org] in keeping us informed about the Hague Conference on Private International Law. This page includes a reference to one mailing list on the subject, but you can also follow the news on another more general mailing list at http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/upd-di scuss [essential.org] .
Although it is true that /. readers are unusually well-informed on related issues, this Economist leader does make the important point that the U.S. government has deliberately sought to keep this accord secret from public discussion. Its quiet adoption might well mean an end-run around some freedoms on the Internet that many of us, including libertarians as well as liberals, technology experts as well as common consumers, ought to treasure and debate more openly.
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
We should not react as the barbarians did in 5000 BC, or we shall become as redundant and outmoded as they did. We should accept the benefits, and move on."
The major form of civilization that was the prefered system of choice at the time was a hereditary dictatorship with a large segment of the local population in some form of slavery. There is some truth to the idea of an oriental despotism.
For that matter, take a look at the caste system that dominated Ancient Rome. Your generally could only go into the same occupation that your father had. Also, in Rome, if you wanted to leave, there was no where you could go, really, unless you went to live among the barbarians. It was a closed system. China, etc. were quite a far distance away.
Certain barbarians objected to this, you could say. Democracy was a very rare thing indeed.
Yahoo shines in the Article (Score:2)
Why stop there? (Score:2)
So, what some lawmaker would propose to make sure that we don't pirate anything is to implant a chip in everyone's brain that will block off all of our senses unless we register them with the RIAA for hearing, so babies can listen to Britney Spears' " Oh Mommy, Mommy"(TM), the MPAA so the baby will have rights to "The Rattle"(TM) starring Dennis Leary and Mickey Mouse. Then, they will have to register their interactive non-artificial artificial intelligence OS called "Windows Me (literally)"as Microsoft will own the human genome by then.
By this time, the aliens will stop abducting people in the night, as the plan to steal all of our brains via anal probes will have been completed successfully.
IPv6 a bad thing? (Score:2)
Obligatory Freenet Link (Score:2)
Really, how can it possibly be done? (Score:2)
Considering also the incredibly vast variety of resources and information available on the Net, how could it ever be possible for the government to achieve any sort of wide-scale regulation? Intelligent software controlling the Net doesn't seem like a viable solution - it couldn't possibly cover all cases. You'd need trained humans at the helm. I don't imagine the government will sit agents on every router, watching the transactions. *chuckle*
Let's look at other forms of Internet regulation that have been enactled. No agency has yet to successfully stop the trade of pirated software, movies, and MP3's. The MPAA is no where NEAR stopping the proliferation of DeCSS. Just about all web blocking software can still be circumvented by merely typing in the decimal value of IP address octets. They keep failing.
It may be very imprudent of me to brush this off, but Internet regulation *still* seems pretty far-fetched.
Flawed perspective? (Score:2)
For example, two of the biggest stories of information regulation and control were the Napster and DeCSS lawsuits, filed by some of the same huge media corporations. Many felt that those were the most important challenges to the free transferrance of information.
As to my other point, one should measure freedom ultimately by the proportion of people who have it. Right now, the proportion of those with access to the Internet, not to mention the capital to own or rent server space, to pay for the production of web content, blah blah, is very low. In my estimate, then, a large amount of freedom for a small part of the population is not much freedom at all.
Another Bad "Economist" article (Score:2)
"The Internet was supposed to be all about freedom."
NO! The Internet was all about connecting different Department of Defense computers together so that resources could be shared! That's it! End of story! All of this nonsense about the Internet being some kind of utopian Libertarian commune is Leftist mind-rot! "The Economist" tends to lean that way. Slashdot should have linked to an article more like http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~newman/chap2.html [berkeley.edu]
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
The difference today? We're running out of places to flee. That and the leveraging force of technology for use in oppression by the ruling classes. Never before in history have so few been able to oppress so many with so little.
Imperialism (Score:2)
The idea of a UN (or anyone) backed "Global Internet Court" will never work. For one, it's total Imperialism. A nation would be giving up its right to control the judicial system that deals with Commerce in its country. And some other issues arise. How do you enforce things? The Yahoo! case does perfectly; they could say that the French have no juristiction to touch them, and who's gonna stop them? ICANN? The WIPO, who are entertaining the Nissan domain-squatting case (possibly the most ridiculous Internet case yet)?
Granted, local juristiction would not be the be-all-end-all solution, as many US courts are prone to favor business over people, but this solution would provide the best hope for equality.
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:2)
10k years ago or so, barbarism meant that as you were hunting a rabbit, some mean guy with a club ended up eating you. You had to face these mean, club-wielding guys once in a while or not eat.
Fast forward 10k years- a digital barbarian with a club jumps out of my modem at eats me? Nope. Yes, we all love the 'net, but we don't NEED it to survive.
Yes, I understand the thin analogy being proposed, but I seem to come across an increasing amount of bad analogies.
As for topic- in recorded history there tends to be a cycle for governments- either get more repressive over time or get more indulgent over time. This tends to lead to revolution or invasion, respectively. In the US, we seem to be headed towards repression, but at least this time there are some who recognize this trend and are fighting against it. This fight extends into the 'net.
(BTW, my first
Regulation will and must follow technology (Score:2)
While regulation per se is not a bad thing, we should closely watch the details of any new internet regulation. Those who cry "censorship" at the first sight of a law with the word "internet" in its title cause the whole net community to be taken less than serious. Sadly, almost every Slashdot discussion (at least in the YRO section) contains this sort of outcry.
Don't get me wrong here: There are threatening laws out there that need to be critized, but in an intelligent manner. The Economist article is quite detailed and well worth the read although I don't share the pessimism.
A Couple of Nits to Pick (Score:2)
But what do we have to complain about in the US? A cybercrime treaty that the outgoing President signed. Well everyone ought to know that the treaty has to be ratified by congress before it is binding in the US. Odds of that happening are low, and if you call or email your congresscritters [house.gov] and let them know what you think it will be even lower.
Complaints about eBay. Well, they've been censoring things for a long time now. Try selling a gun on eBay (which you could do when they first opened). Not any longer. As a matter of fact, you cannot even sell a legal high capacity magazine on eBay these days! What's the answer? Other auction sites! Places like gunbroker.com [gunbroker.com] have moved in to take over the segment of the market that eBay refuses to satisfy. That's freedom at work.
And the other thing that really frosts me is this insistence that requiring filtering on school and library computers (owned and paid for by all of us tax payers) is some kind of evil censorship. It isn't. If you want to browse your porn sites then get your own damn internet connection, don't do it on my dime. But they censor more than just port sites, you say. Well the answer to that is to lobby to get them to change (and reveal) the lists of the sites they block, not to remove the blocking completely.
And what reasonable parent would want to send their kid to the library to check out the latest Harry Potter book, only to have to walk by some pervert drooling over the latest Porn Pics.
Liberty and Freedom doesn't mean that you have the right to force the rest of us to pay for your habits. Keep it in your home, where it belongs. And don't forget -- when you accept Taxpayer Funds you have to also accept the strings that are attached.
For more of my rants and views drop on over to www.libertynews.org [libertynews.org]
Re:The most interesting commet (Score:3)
"Why would they have to wear masks?", they would say. It was perfectly acceptable just to shoot people in cold blood in the name of law and order.
I suggest you go back and read your history books. Pay particularly attention to the labor battles such as with Carnegie steel, the docks in San Francisco and New York, etc.
Check out Joseph McCarthy. Check out Wallace on the steps in Alabama, or the assassination of two Kennedy's and King.
Then come back and claim we are worse off today.
One thing I really hate are people who never learned history and are doomed to repeat it.
We must be ever vigilante in the defense of our freedoms, but we also must be rational and intelligent in the discussion of same.
Unfortunately, it's true (Score:3)
Groups like the cypherpunks have forseen this on the net for a long time, and I'm sure the general fear of authoritarianism is sufficient, and far older. Many people believe the current middle-ground level of regulation is not a stable position; we will either have full regulation or no regulation. Since I believe global revolution to protect Internet freedom is highly unlikely in a world which has allowed every other technology to become fully regulated, the only thing that can possibly make the Internet free again is the technology itself.
No other technology lends itself so easily to encryption, steganography, and traffic analysis protection. Thanks to the widespread deployment of "politically acceptable" applications like ecommerce, chat systems, etc. on the Internet, there is a huge amount of cover traffic available.
The ultimate goal is a network resistant to arbitrary degrees against traffic analysis, malicious attacks, denial of service, and physical compromise. Of course, to have this in practice, a lot of separate technologies must be integrated, and one thing learned from ssl vs. pgp, it must be presented in a relatively seamless and simple way to the user. There have been some good beginnings made toward this goal, including ZKS, Mojonation, and e-gold, but nothing has yet become so seamless and easy to use, as well as "full-service", that it is the final solution.
I think the value of such technology is non-linear; being able to know that it isn't *possible* for your communications to be tracked by your adversaries is worth more than 10x as much as a system 1/10th the strength, and something which is as easy to use (or easier to use) than insecure tools is worth far more than something which requires even the minor level of additional work required by the user to browse SSL websites securely.
I'm happy to be involved with HavenCo, as one of the essential parts to this is having a physically and legally secure environment in which to host your servers. After all, it doesn't do a lot of good to use SSL or a new anonymous anti-traffic analysis successor if you're putting personal information on a server which anyone can subpoena or black-bag. At HavenCo, we're focusing on secure managed colo of business servers (USD 1500/month including bandwidth, which is fine for business and other serious users but is more than most individuals can afford, unless they share), and that's going quite well. We are also looking at ways to support consumer/end-user privacy, both on the web/email hosting front, and core technologies like traffic analysis protection, cryptographic tools, and a solution to the pervasive payment problem. We've been a bit quiet on the marketing and PR front as we expand, but that will change soon.
Even though it means more financial success for me if the US/UK/etc. tighten regulations more and more, driving businesses to places like Sealand, I would definitely prefer the outcome where individual freedoms are respected worldwide. After all, Sealand isn't exactly the best vacation spot in the world, especially in the current winter 30kt winds and 7' waves.
Re:Free (Score:3)
Funny how you can be breaking the law without even knowing it. Maybe in 5 years time we will all receive daily email updates from the government on what is and is not illegal now.
Re:Free (Score:3)
Re: purpose of laws. (Score:3)
Confusion, Freedom From Choice and Technology (Score:3)
1. Bitch & moan about governments/corporations legislating our freedoms away on the 'net.
2. Champion government/corporate efforts towards reducing SPAM.
3. Champion government/corporate efforts to protect our privacy.
Of course, such a tool would be very handy if it could be used on politicians/ceo's as well (hmmm, this year they're supporting this concept but last year they said it was a joke - interesting
Unfortunately, If we want the government/corporations to do #2 & #3, we're opening the door to #1! If we want freedom and anarchy on the 'net, then we're going to get SPAM and lack of freedom. It becomes a "ding-dong" battle between the people inventing technology to give us freedom and those who would then use the technology to piss us off. How do people feel about anonymous systems being used to protect SPAMer's? Does this make up for their use to protect your "legitimate" privacy needs?
As previously mentioned, all too many people want legislation to protect them from themselves! I have been told by police in the USA that they have occasionally been called by parents and asked to discipline their children. Erm - hello???? All too many people want to abdicate responsibility and the need to think for themselves. Perhaps it's a sign of the times - they're too overloaded and just want the "simple" life (read: over regulated, hyper controlled, "I'm happy in my easy chair watching TV" life).
Anarchy vs freedom vs SPAM vs anonymity vs privacy vs legislation vs control - what's happening on the 'net is an extension of what we're seeing in life around us. Are we just going to bitch & moan about it all (and thus be part of the problem) or are we going to do something about it? If the latter, what are we going to do (or what are we already doing)?
Re:Free (Score:3)
--
Only the beginning... (Score:3)
Re:A Couple of Nits to Pick (Score:3)
Think for a second about how ridiculous this image is. My college's library and the local public library both have policies that say they'll ask anyone who's pornsurfing to stop doing it. When I talked to the librarians about it, they chuckled, because -- duh -- nobody would even do it in the first place. There are lots of goofy or offensive things that people could do in public, but they don't do it because of ordinary social constraints on behavior. It's not necessary to pass laws against it. It's like the laws that have been passed here in the U.S. against burning the flag. The plain truth is that nobody really does go around burning flags. But it's a good way for a politician to score points.
Liberty and Freedom doesn't mean that you have the right to force the rest of us to pay for your habits.
I have this silly habit of going to the public library and checking out books to read. I know, it's really offensive of me to ask to have this habit subsdized by the taxpayers.
But seriously, I feel sorry for any librarian who is forced to choose between quitting her/his job and becoming a censor. It's a sad thing when you can no longer trust the librarian to help you find information because she's been turned into an organ of government censorship.
The Assayer [theassayer.org] - free-information book reviews
Sadly true... (Score:3)
This is probably one of the more relevant and interesting posts here in a long time. Kudos to the moderators.
Keep it up, y'all.
OK,
- B
--
The right to seek relief (Score:3)
Under the treaty, an online store could be liable under laws in any of the 48 member-countries of the Hague conference. That is why the American government is opposing, among other things, a clause that would ensure that consumers could sue businesses in the courts of the country where the consumer lives.
Instead, the Department of Commerce and e-commerce firms are pushing for a different solution: in effect, a new system of private laws, which would avoid the requirement to abide by the laws of the countries where their customers live. As in the Safe Harbour agreement, web firms could seek a certification that they follow certain minimum rules of consumer protection and privacy.Conflicts would be resolved by so-called "alternative dispute resolution".
Dispute resolution by who? This is the same kind of self-policing that gives business the advantage over the consumer in other global trade agreements. Who will create the forums for alternative dispute resolution?
It is essential for the consumer to enjoy protection of some set of laws when he or she uses the internet in business. as more individuals use it to maintain their livelihoods, states actually have MORE legitimate right to police fraudulent business practices on the "global" Internet.
There must be some kind of democratically legitimate constructuion of relief for consumers under a global system. If not the laws in the state where the consumer has citizenship, then perhaps some other global body such as the United Nations should step in the fray. If it can start an international criminal court to seek genocidal leaders and try them, it can try consumer fraud.
Don't let the businesses entirely police themselves.
over in the US, you've got it easy (Score:3)
This would be OK if they just blocked pornography, but they also block hacking sites (such as 2600.com [2600.com]) and, as with all other censorship, they also block their fair share of non-offensive (by their standards) websites. www.newton.org.uk [newton.org.uk] is the only example I can think of now, but I've seen more. Previously, an anonymous web browser could be used to get around this, but they caught on and decided to brand those as "offensive" too.
So, if you ever feel like your government is clamping down on your freedom, just remember that there are people like me in countries where the government is <WORDPLAY> just plain unjust.</WORDPLAY>
Oh, I forgot to mention that the single, government-owned ISP provides 56kbps as its fastest option (unless you are a government agency or Internet cafe, in which case you can have 256kbps for a measly $2,500 a month). So, not only does it block many interesting sites (I keep seeing links in /. comments - click - D'oh! That stupid "Important Notice" again) but it provides a very slow, unreliable service with which to access then non-offensive content.
Re:Surely these development the Net's maturity? (Score:4)
If things go bad... (Score:4)
Life in russia, was Re:The most interesting commet (Score:4)
In russia they have SORM. It's philisophically a bit like Carnivour, or the RIP software or basically privatised bits of Ecshelon. SORM is a black box that sits at the ISP and stores, indexes and analyses packets. It basically legalises what the FSB (former KGB) were doing already. It also decentralises the work which means it's easier. The guy who told me that works for a former part of the KGB that was split off and privatised with partly US venture capital. Their team is all pretty young, all pretty bright, and all prett keen on real time decryption of 56 key decryption of the voice channel on gsm cellphone traffic. keen distributed computer guys who do their jobs cos they love the intellectual challenge of it. And they are not alone. So the idea of data privacy is a joke. IBM can number crunch uncrunchable primes using quantum computer make of 5 fullerine atoms. That was months ago. A network of specialised computing devices on that sort of scale makes for some pretty interesting chips. A quantum ray tracer would be faster than light. A quantum based encryption/decryption race will yield incredible bounty for those of us whose privacy needs are minimal anyway. Let the NSA and the FSB and the banks and cartels and the triads and mafia and NATO and WTO and every damn sovereign nation on this earth spend as much of their budgets as they dare to out encrypt/decrypt each other. You can't have anything without securing it, but you can't secure it anymore. But then again, you never really could anyway. In Russia in Soviet times everyone could have been an informer. In the modern world everything will be. The 100,000+ cameras in every london street are a more insidious presence than anything the russins have done though. The footage from those cameras can be stored for future analysis and indexing. The indexing that can be done today is not bad to tell the truth. They are taged with GPS locations, the new lingua franca of where things are, as well as orientation data, such that their fields of view can be combined, like a smarter version of Canoma. That's spooky. George W Bush wants to put missiles in orbit to keep the peace. So do the Chinese - all of 'em apparently. The CIA just released a report saying the world is going to shit and needs more guns, nanotechnology is looming. run to the hills. Still even though I am subliminally aware that my every move is being watched and recorded, i work in a room fullof machines with permanent net connections, cameras, microphones, proprietory operating systems an software etc that could make a person paranoid; life is not a movie and much of my life is not that riveting.
If the They know that at 3am on the morning on 13th january i was watching the x-men on dvd and catching up on some email - mostly rants to friends, and jargon laden banter to workmates and associates, and work, mostly writing stuff that will end up online anyway, good luck to 'em. By the same token i hope the guy out there with the dungeon full of kiddies and the global napster style swap club get's busted badly, and i hope the girl and her brother, refugies from some shithole get to a webterminal somewhere, email someone, anyone and even though it bounces, an analysys system recognises an anolamy and passes in on for further analys. and as a result two kids are retreved from otherwise certain suffering.
Be sure they will be an age of all encompasing cradle to grave to indexed archive surveillence. in such an age the conspirators messing with Will Smith's life in enema of the state wouldn't have had a chance.
In amsterdam people live with huge open windows that face the street. you can see into people's houses easily, especially as you wander around of an evening and people are eating their dinner. It's weird. Their red light district is a reflection of this, with the women in neon lit up amluminum sided glass boxes. Like the Tescos of Soho. But the dutch flaunt their disregard for privacy on a social level you'd never see in england or australia (outside of queensland).
We are lucky that for the most of us, the system seems to tolerate us. As I write this my housemate has just walked in, she is opening a box of freeby makeup and saying "Look what I got for free... all i had to do is put my name and address is a website. This is hairspray!" I gotta go...
Re:Realism vs. Idealism (Score:4)
What I'm afraid is that the imminent clampdown of the net will lead to the same nationalistic confrontation bullshit we're familiar in the real world. A good example of this is the French decision to ban certain sites that offend the "public morale" (ugh!).
Up until now the Internet has been a great projection of the entire human culture. Everything from its darkest and seediest side to the greatest cultural achievements have been available to everyone. For awhile the Truth really was out there and the people have been free to choose either to read it or ignore it. Now the governments want back the authority to decide what the citizens are allowed to see.
Yes, the "free world" might be idealistic but nonetheless a worthy cause to fight for.
Free (Score:4)
lets leave it like that, not tax it and regulate it.
Example, so many people complain about Porn, why?
Just don't look up "Sex" in a search engine, and it'll never bother you. Don't try to regulate someones for of entertainment (or exercise
We could just aswell make a big deal out of Warez, or Moviez, or people telling you how to make drugs, or any number of things that is illegal.
Re:The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:5)
The United States was founded on a principle of intellectual property. It is a protected right by grant of the US Constitution.
An assault on freedom would be if the RIAA were to prevent you from recording your own music and selling it on the market. This hasn't been what the internet debates have been about.
If you don't like the restrictions placed on you by the content creators then DON'T UTILIZE THEIR SERVICES! Don't listen to the music, don't watch the movies, don't use the software. That is the only lawful, moral and ethical way to cause them financial harm.
Better yet, go out and create your own music, your own movies, your own software! Then compete with them fairly!
Otherwise if you just sit around whining because the RIAA, MPAA and SIIA is protecting their constitutionally guaranteed right...
You are a parasite. We don't need parasites in our society, as they provide no value.
The Most Interesting Bit of this Discussion... (Score:5)
Sorry, guys, but that's a dead-wrong approach. The only governments that are directly squelching the Internet are a few totalitarian regimes with far worse problems of human rights violations than just a bit of Internet-blocking.
No, for most of us Internet users, the problem is not with government control: it's with Corporate control. That these corporations may weild the government as a weapon against us it irrelevant: the fact remains that it's the EULAs, MPAAs, RIAAs and suchlike that are squishing hell out of our 'net freedoms.
The government never gave two shakes about whether you and I swapped software, music or video. Only the Corporate owners cared, and they pressured/bought the changes the government made to our laws.
If you want the Internet to remain free, you've got to battle it on two fronts: you *must* pressure your government into slacking off, and you *must* pressure Corporations into backing off.
And the only way to do the latter is to cause them financial harm. Corporations must ultimately be responsible to their shareholders, and their shareholders demand profits.
So you need to get serious about boycotting, serious about spreading the boycott, and serious about letting the Corporations know that you're boycotting them, and what they need to do differently to win back your financial support.
If you don't take those steps, you--and your use of the Internet--is fucked. Kiss all the freedoms you've come to enjoy on the net goodbye.
--
No. (Score:5)
The Fight... (Score:5)
The next ten years will be the time we fight. We will be fighting Corporations that want the Internet to be turned into the perfect medium for delivering demographically tailored marketing to Consumers and the Governments from preventing us from "being culturally subversive."
In ten years we'll know what happened. Will the Internet be a tool for individuals to share information or a tool for Corporations and Governments to spread Propaganda and enforce the Status Quo?
I'll see you in ten years.
The most interesting commet (Score:5)
While some people laugh and say things like "That will never happen" or "Thats impossible" and "They can try and stop me, but they will fail, *maniacal laughter*". Let me give you a brief history lesson. 50 short years ago, policeman dressed up like militia members with ninja masks on would have shocked the nation. No knock warrants would have never been allowed, and there would have been a huge broohaa over police "anti-drug/anti-terrorist" tatics. These all exist today. We even expect our police to have fully automatic weapons when they charge into a house to resolve a custody dispute. I know that no one really wants to hear this, BUT, we have less "freedom" now than our grandmothers and grandfathers had. Between the War Powers act, the "War on Drugs" and various other "emergencies" that call for action. Get used to carrying your "ID card" and get used to the phrase "Where are you papers?"
If we continue to elect Nazi's instead of buying old memorabilia we're in deep doo doo, and that goes for the Internet as a whole. Well at least we all will look good. The Nazi's were the best dressed soldiers of modern times and I hope the underground will be alive also.
Realism vs. Idealism (Score:5)
The Internet was never immune to current law. You have lawyers who claim it isn't tacked down because there is no specific mention of electronic media in copyright law, slander laws, etc. But we know what was intended.
The Internet was never private. It was the rise of typically private transactions that led the hue and cry for privacy. In fact, the Internet was bare, naked, and exposed for all the world. We demanded privacy after-the-fact. This is the same thing that happened with telephones.
Perhaps we should understand the realism, recognize that our states and countries have laws, and instead of expected some sort of Idealistic free world to come about on its own, we should try and create it.
Despite the cynicism of my view, I think the Idealistic views of the Internet have a lot of merit. I also believe that many of the local laws being passed violate existing laws or even, heaven forbid, the Constitution (in the US anyway). Don't take things for granted, they aren't.
----------------------