34 ISPs Subpoenaed By U.S. Government 391
seanonymous writes "The Justice Department, in their continued effort to revive questionable legislation, has subpoenaed dozens of ISPs for files. Considering that ISPs generally host their users' mail, this seems like it could be a larger issue than their fight with Google over search queries. Some, like Verizon, even resisted the call for information." From the article: "Representatives for McAfee and Symantec confirmed that the companies had received and complied with the subpoenas. A spokeswoman at LookSmart did not immediately return a phone call. Many of the subpoenas asked for information related to products that can be used to filter out adult content for underage Internet users. Symantec's subpoena, dated June 29, asked for a wide range of information about the price and popularity of the Internet filtering products it sells and how the products are used by customers. " Information Week has a number of the documents involved, including the letter of objection from Verizon.
Damn... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Damn... (Score:2)
Re:Damn... (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe that should be the Democratic platform for 2008: "Yes, we'll try to intimidate and oppress you too, but unlike Bush's friends, we'll just give up if it doesn't work the first time!"
I'm voting Democrat. Al
Re:Damn... (Score:4, Funny)
Cthulhu for President. Why vote for a lesser evil?
http://www.cthulhu.org/ [cthulhu.org]
Says it all, really (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't get it. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is this just a simple matter of the DoJ assuming that at least some of the corporations will decide it's faster to comply, than to argue for their privacy?
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its borderline legal. These are _civil_ subpoenas. They are not criminal ones. There is no crime involved. Porn is legal. Anybody, including the government can sue anybody in the US, but I don't understand why judges are granting these subpoenas being that nothing can come from the data collected. I don't understand why they forgot about the 1st and 4th amendments.
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
You ever notice how gov't acts named things like "Protection of Families" or "Protection of Marriage" or "Protection of Children" or "Protection from Terrorists" mainly serve to limit or take away legal protections and rights from the people?
I'm scared of my gov't trying to "Protect" me anymore than they already do. I think I have the right to make my own choices and live with the consequences as lon
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)
Because there is no evidence that the information is relevant. A citizen can't just bring a case before the court and ask for information on the government just because they beleive it's crucial to the case.
"Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has bee
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:3, Informative)
Your honor, I beleive the confession that will prove my innosense has been sealed in the concrete comprising the Washington Monument.
Son, the Washington Monument is made of marble.
Re:I just don't get it. (Score:2)
Get your facts straight. (Score:3, Insightful)
Get your facts straight. This is not a "case" in front of a "court". This is a fishing expedition whose data will be spun six ways from Sunday in some study to "prove" that a new law to "protect the children" is in fact needed.
In Google's case, they want to prove that an innocuous search can pull up a significant percentage of links to porn sites which, if accidentally clicked on, will suddenly and irreversably warp the precious child's mind
What? (Score:3, Insightful)
So now "not helping the government" is a crime in and of itself?
Easy Answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy, "if you're not for us, you're against us"
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:2)
This idealogy is made of win and good. I'll be sure to let Microsoft and the RIAA know this next time I pirate some stuff.
The collection of information for court proceedings happens for every case, criminal or civil
Again, what specific crime has been commited that gives the justice department the right to subpoena information? This is nothing more than fishing for crimes. They can't simply say "give me your records so we can
Re:What? (Score:2)
None. The court is allowing them to subpeona information to use to decide a case. They're supposed to decide cases without information?
This was made clear in my previous comment.
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the great thing about being the government. In order to pursue your own agenda, you get to strong-arm people. I'm sure for many kinds of investigations, the government can compel your assistance.
However, compelling your assistance to gather information to fight a supreme court ruling that a law you enacted was illegal -- I don't think should
Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Hmm.. I do think that this is getting a bit out of hand now. I'm glad that some of "them" do resist the calls for information, but for how long ? After all, most resources are controlled by the government and they're capable of putting an enormous amount of pressure on said corporations.
I don't quite understand the US governments crusade against online porn and for child protection. Is it just a ploy to gain votes ? It's however scary to see such a breach of privacy, even if on a small scale. IMO, this could grow into things much bigger.
I work with online advertising (read that I have a couple of websites..), and I want to share something with my fellow slashdotters. Many of you must have heard of/seen Google Adsense. Well, MS's response to that, MSN Adcenter launched in Beta a few months ago and I've been working with that. One look inside that interface and it is shocking to see the kind of targetting they're capable of. If they can target so well, they obviously have an ENORMOUS amount of information on folks on the internet. Just an example of their penetration, you can choose to target to "Unmarried Men in the age group of 30-35 in the state of New York with incomes in the rage of $100,000". (We all know what those ads are ;)) I saw this and was like "WHAT ?! How the hell are they supposed to have so much information on a person who's just opened a website to see some stuff.."
Well, my point is that all this information that lies with MSN, Google, etc. CAN be accessed by the government, and as an individual worried about my privacy, this is alarming.
I think it's time we all scroogled [scroogle.org]. (and no, this is not a promotional post :))
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:5, Informative)
Religious people don't just want to remove [insert_immoral_action_here] from their own life. They beleive it is their sacred duty to prevent everyone else from doing it as well. Regardless of the law everyone's agreed to live under.
Remember, this is the president who actually beleives god instructs him personally
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:5, Funny)
Aren't there laws about that ?
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:4, Interesting)
As a dedicated Christian (and a Libertarian), I believe everyone has free will to do as they choose. If you choose to do something which I personally don't believe in--that's your choice. For me to tell you that you cannot do something "sinful" is to impose on your personal freedom. Nor is it really helpful--I don't help you know God any better by making you follow my rules. Christianity isn't about making people not "sin", it's about knowing God.
It is expected in our culture that children are not yet adults. They are limited in both the actions that they can choose (and the consequences--being tried as a juvenile is less severe than being tried as an adult). Most people would not support a mandatory bike (not motorcycle) helmet law for everyone, but most would support a mandatory child bike helmet law. As a culture, it is generally understood that children do not have all of the freedoms that we enjoy as adults.
For that reason, there is a group of people which believes that it's societies' obligation to "protect" children from Pornography, which they consider harmful. Although I realize that you most likely do not view pornography as harmful, those that do wish to protect children in the same way as those who wish to pass mandatory child helmet laws. From their point of view, their beliefs are consistent.
The way that the Government is going about subpoenaing for information is wrong. There are a number of ways to collect such information without infringing on the privacy of its citizens. However, it's much more convienant to infringe on our rights (and our Government certainly doesn't care about rights), rather than collect information in a non-invasive way, so they've chosen to invade our privacy.
Please realize that not all "religious" people have a similar viewpoint as those who generally disregard our rights. I too believe that God instructs me personally. I am not a puppet, but I do choose to live my life following the plan he has laid out for me. And by no means do I agree with many of the things that our Government is doing, as I feel that many of them are infringing on our personal freedoms. Realize that religion is often used as a tool to achieve personal goals, rather than knowing God. Don't blame God for the choices that people make when they USE God to support their Goal. That would be like me blaming you for the war in Iraq, even if you had opposed it from the onset.
I'm truly sorry that you have had so many negative experiences with people who profess to know God in your life. It's a shame, and it's a disservice to him.
Re:Religion and Protecting Others (Score:3, Insightful)
Speak all you want. But when I ask you to shut up and stop bothering me, because I do not share your sense of what is sin and what isn't, have the decency to shut up. In the US, I used to think that the 1st Amendment to the Constitution gave me the right to not believe I had an everlasting soul I was endangering by looking at pictures of naked women.
Its a consequence of open government... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:2)
Where *do* you happen to be from? If you say England, I'm going to dedicate the rest of my life to inventing a product that will reach through your computer monitor and slap you in the face.
Re:Thank goodness I'm not in the US.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Precisely why I run my own mail server. My mail goes to my house on a machine I own. It might pass through a relay or two on its way, but generally mai lonly passes from the sender's ISP to my network. Same with my web presence, etc. While I do generally trust my ISP to keep my information secure, I trust myself a lot more. And since I qualify as an ISP due to the way information passes through my machines, the laws do a
Thin end of the wedge? (Score:2, Insightful)
Even if the Government does not currently read everyone's mail the fact that ISPs store the email for a long time (forever?) means that eventually once all ISPs comply they will.
So don't send anything that you wouldn't be happy for the Government to read unless you use a web based account from a cybercafe t
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:2, Informative)
This is not about "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY". It is (supposedly) about a law that is designed to prevent children from LOOKING AT pornography. It's also a load of BS, but at least get their lame-assed excuse right.
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Careful -- you've already fallen for their manipulation of the language. They're hoping that by using the words "children" and "pornography" in close conjunction, you'll automatically think, "Oh, child porn, we've got to get rid of that!" But COPA has nothing to do with child porn; it has to do (allegedly) with children seeing porn on the web -- the vast bulk of which is not child porn; it's regular old-fashioned adult porn. Conflating the (very mild, and entirely within the parents' domain) issue of little Johnny looking at dirty pictures with the (very serious, and entirely criminal already) problem of child porn is a cynical and dangerous political ploy.
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:2)
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:3, Insightful)
That is exactly how "elected" officials think of us.
Re:Thin end of the wedge? (Score:3, Funny)
Google Image search for "old fasioned adult porn"... [oldfashionedporn.com]
~W
News flash (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:News flash (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know if the law was ever intended to be used in this way, but either way it
Re:News flash (Score:2)
No it didn't. Before the internet, insurance company records could be subpeonaed. Also credit card company records. Banks. Hospitals. All of them have large amounts of private information on large numbers of people.
either way it's scary
Oh yeah, terrifying. Why can't it just be a problem you'd like to see co
Re:News flash (Score:2)
At least you're in touch with your emotions.
I like to decide things based on facts and practical considerations. Pros and cons. It makes for better decisions. Try it out sometime.
Re:News flash (Score:2)
I hate child porn and everybody engaged in it with a passion, but that doesn't mean that I turn
Re:News flash (Score:2)
The law this information is for is NOT against child pornography. It is against children looking at pornography. This is an excellent use of one of the most common (and sadly, effective) logical fallacies -- straw man.
Re:News flash (Score:2)
Re:News flash (Score:2)
Or for civil cases. Or in a number of other situations. Subpeona [answers.com].
Grow a brain
Perhaps someone with a brain might want to know what a subpeona is before he says stupid things on a message board.
And I didn't say anything about whether they ought to get the information. I actually think they shouldn't unless the court safeguards the ISP's users.
Re:News flash (Score:3, Insightful)
Private information can be subpeonaed for good and just reasons for a criminal investigation under guidelines of the constitution. The war on terror didn't change that.
Or well... wasn't supposed to. The problem is that we are making crimes out of things that shouldn't be crimes and making a legal system so convoluted that all one has to do is look at a long list of secret laws and pick one that you have happened to have violated (unbekno
Re:News flash (Score:2)
Read the definition of a subpeona [answers.com] please. Stop the war on terror FUD. Also, this isn't a criminal matter. No one ever said it was. You might want to stop the FUD on that subject too.
Where are the churches? (Score:5, Interesting)
But perhaps the desire to control others runs too deep.
Really? Porn? (Score:5, Funny)
Data collection (Score:4, Insightful)
Seriously even if this online child protection act fails they still have all the information they are requesting, what is to stop this information being cross indexed with the phone tap information, and credit information and anything else they may be gathering end result a rather worrying profile of a large cross section of the US population.
I am usually not a paranoid person I don't subscribe to most conspiracy theories but this is a rather worrying invasion of personal privacy, at this rate bring in a few psychiatrists to review the files they are building on you and build a profile next thing you know you get a knock on the door from the feds arresting you because your physiological profile indicates a possible threat to the internal security of the US in the future, because of your worrying desire to take a vacation in Eygpt and since Eygpt is a mostly islamic nation you must be a terrorist.
Re:Data collection (Score:2)
I don't think so. There are larger and better organized databases out there that already for sale. This is just a power trip thing. Nothing new.
Little Brother (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Little Brother (Score:5, Insightful)
To be clear: the current Republican government (controlling the White House for 5 years, both houses of Congress for as long as 12 years) lies when it tells you that it stands for small, limited, noninvasive government. These Republicans lie when they say they stand for personal freedom. And they're lying about corporate independence, too. They want corporate dependence on government, for government to do their competing for them, to prop them up with corporate welfare whenever possible, whether they need it or not. They are fascists, who merge corporate and government power.
These Republicans will search your email, surveil you from unmanned drones over your hometown or Spring Break, tap your phones, kidnap you and send you to Guantanamo to be tortured. They'll steal your taxes as collateral on unsupportable debt you'll have to pay for generations, and give the money to their corporate cronies. Who will not only fail to protect you when your home is destroyed by years of paying contractors for useless infrastructure, but will actively prevent individuals from helping you survive with gun-enforced useless bureaucracy.
But maybe I'm just not seeing the Republican vision at the end of the long, hard slog. Maybe that "small, limited, noninvasive government" really is coming. The personal freedom and corporate independence of humanity's natural state: anarchy and warlordism. Just how Marx predicted capitalism would eventually burn itself out. Then the only hypocrisy in the Republican plan is naming themselves after Plato's description of a representative government.
Re:Little Brother (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Little Brother (Score:2)
And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
The question is this, do we continue with this network as it is now, let the man direct the traffic and install his regulations, or do we the geeks of the world build a new Internet in the hopes of even one more day of geekish freedom?
Re:And so it begins (Score:2, Funny)
I got about 65 ft of 10base I can donate!
td
Re:And so it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
Fight against this authoritarian bullshit sure, but we badly need to prepare for the preservation of freedom in a 'soft' police state, because that's where we're heading right now.
RE:QUICK!!! Shred the DVD's! Hammer the Drives! (Score:2)
I'm not sure Verizon is makine the best move here. Either way we *need* something like this to happen, make its way to court, and set a precident.
Right now, its still a game. We can get away with a lot of stuff simply because there is a whole lot of "stuff" going on. Whats one more downloader? Its usually been like failing to buckle your seat belt. In some states, it wont get you fined unless you're pulled over for something else.
If we know we'll get stomped for DLing, an
Verizon still sucks (Score:2)
Parents (Score:3, Insightful)
Wordplay (Score:2)
"The subpoenas are part of the government's defense of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The law makes it illegal to provide children with online content deemed harmful to them."
As easy as it is to change some words in the article, you should also be able to change the filter. Let's try it:
"The subpoenas are part of the government's defense of the 1998 Child Online Protection Act. The law makes it illegal to provide people with online content deemed harmful to the government."
Mod me a trol
Can the companies charge the government for this? (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:2)
Re:It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:2)
let me guess... trust fund brat? must be nice living in a part of the world where a studio appartment doesn't consume an entire salary. however, you shouldn't assume that everyone else has it as easy as you. where i am (ny), it is difficult for many families to get by on 2 incomes - even if they have no children. once you throw the additional expense of kids
Re:Your post epitomizes why the problem exists (Score:3, Insightful)
1) i agree: fewer workers = more demand for labor. it also means a smaller workforce, which leads to lower production. lower production means higher costs. you make more, but pay more (inflation anyone?). that, of course, leads to higher interest rates. which leads to
Re:It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:2)
Re:It's never been easier to be a parent (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow.
I love porn! (Score:3, Interesting)
First, this proves that the government's infamous "Carnivore" either does not exist or does not work. Which is nice.
Second, this proves that something is wrong with the government.
Porn is legal and good. The quality and quantity that you can get now is astounding, and most of it is served straight from the US in very high speed, and the companies comply with all laws, or at least as many if not more than other companies.
Porn is legal. Subpoenaing ISPs and snooping into our business is not legal.
I'm guessing that this is yet another attempt by the feds to get more control of its people they work for, and they are just disguising it as one of those "think of the children" things so that women and the like will say, "Well its for the greater good, right?"
If they really wanted to look for porn, subpoena CCBill, subpoena a porn website, subpoena credit card companies, or bank records. Oh, that might not slip under the "save the children radar" of the courts and the people. So, lets just look at ISP records for now, later....
Re:I love porn! (Score:3, Informative)
Not at all. Do you really think the spy agencies would publicly reveal one of their most valuable assets, just to get some stupid DoJ pet project finished?
This does nothing to confirm or deny the existence of echelon/carnivore/any other massive government snoop operations.
Re:I love porn! (Score:2)
Do you think for a minute that any of the potential information that could or would be gathered via such a subpoena would be publicly revealed?
Irrelevant Analogy of Dubious Merit (Score:2)
Mandatory Content Filtering (Score:4, Interesting)
Once this point is reached, does that mean all content providers lose their 'common carrier' status and are now liable?
Cripe (Score:5, Informative)
Why on Earth is a humble ISP supposed to provide the DOJ with this information, and how are they supposed to do it? And why doesn't the DOJ just research this themselves if this is such a big deal for them?
Standard reply to subpoena like that of Comcast (Score:4, Insightful)
Due to the complex nature of the requested data and the security requried to gaurd such data, we must clear this information throught the board of directors and shareholders of this company. Also, due to the volume of data, we will take at least three years to collect such information. Please be advised that we intend to comply with the subpeona but your data will not be available until March 6, 2010.
We will keep you informed of the progress.
Sincerly,
Corpoerate Red Tape Caused By Government Beauracracy
What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a parent of a 6-year old girl. She's been using the Web since she was old enough to use a computer (3 years old? perhaps, 2+). Her mom has often asked me to install a content filter.
I have long since learned that to come up with a solution, you have to understand the problem first. So, I just watched my kid's online behavior trying to see what she can get to that I don't want her to see. The result? I still don't have any content filters installed to this day. Why? Porn is of no interest to her whatsoever. She goes to various kids' sites. If she wants to search for something, I taught her to use google instead of typing random words into the URL bar. As a result, it is very rarely (as in, once a year) that she gets to see an image of a nude person on the Web. Her reaction so far was to navigate away from such a web site. And if she shows any interest, I feel I would be able to explain to her what was going on. I mean, she doesn't believe in tooth fairies, and she figured that Mickey Mouse was a costume when she was 3, so why wouldn't she be able to figure out the rest of the real world?
Of course, I might be missing something, but then I'm wondering what that is?
Re:What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:2)
You know, the sort who unthinkingly park 'the kids' in front of the TV/DVD to give themselves a few hours 'freedom'...
Re:What's the motivation for content filters? (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Funny)
Legalese (Score:2, Funny)
" "And" and "or" shall be construed either disjunctively or conjunctively as necessary to bring within the scope of the request all responses that might otherwise be construed to be outside of its scope. "
So and can mean and or or, and or can mean or or and? (Or possibly and can mean and and or... no, let's not get crazy.)
Talk about a broad subpoena. If I were Comcast, my response would be, "It depends what your definition
where is this heading? (Score:2, Interesting)
Beyond the repercussions of them wanting information from ISP's there is a greater question here and that is what will be the outcome? I work in the security and content control industry. I know what's out there, and I have seen how much a parent can
Apparently the War on Terra is over! (Score:3, Insightful)
I, for one, welcome our aimless overlords.
My Story (Score:5, Insightful)
I've never understood the need for filters. Sure, there's "bad stuff" out there on the internet. And I have a teenager in the house. I *know* he goes to porn sites, and I don't care. I care when he gets viruses on his machine from those sites, that's about it. (Of course, he is a bit older).
Parents (and political types), here's the formula. Send your kid's machines' through a proxy. You can control where they go from there. You can see whatever site they go to, etc. Don't want them online when you're not around? Setup special policies. (Aka, on a router). Internet time is 6-10pm, etc. You can enforce this in the router. I'm not saying every parent has to be an admin, but I am saying every parent should know more about the Internet than their kids. Don't allow the federal government to enable you to be lazy.
This works! It works wonders! It's called
Why are we wasting our time finding difficult solutions to easy problems? Is our government really that dumb, beuracratic and full of red tape? Since when did the government become the parents of every kid in America? Is that what you're trying to accomplish here?
Sublte (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems to me this is a redherring, if there were a
But let's let the government waste money and time to get whatever information they are seeking under the guise of "it's for the children".
I'm a parent myself, I have an 8 year old. My child has their own computer in their room, and it has net access. I also have a proxy server which limits the places that pc can do on the net and where it can go. It is currently setup to goto child related websites that I have browsed myself and verified the content. Why did I do this?
Because it is [b]MY[/b] responsability to raise my child and know what content they are seeing.
Big brother will be moving in soon enough, I want him to enjoy some sense of personal freedom before they are all stripped away.
Self Hosting (Score:3, Interesting)
Regardless, I host my own email, webpages, etc. I control my personal data. No-one else.
B E A utiful... (Score:3, Insightful)
At least there is "balance" in the world.
Re:Scary..? (Score:2)
Depends on who you ask... I have a feeling that the DOJ might have a different outlook on your paranoia than the rest of us here.
Re:Scary..? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Scary..? (Score:3, Funny)
I think that he needs to run to the mountains of Montana, move into a cave, and then build a faraday cage IN that cave to block the signals from the RFID chip implanted in his brain. Just to be safe, he should wear
Re:Scary..? (Score:3, Funny)
Ha! You fell into their foul trap! Don't you know that Canadian maple syrup has a biogenic compound that causes a person wearing a tin-foil deflector beanie to start bleeding EM radiation out their pores. This is especially insidious since, during the type of self-manipulation that people often participate in during on-line perusals of mature content, a huge burst of EM radiation will occur along with usual burst
Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I look at that and wonder.. reminds me of MS, they can't solve a problem themselves so beat it out of someone else who might have the solution. Except this is the government, I'm afraid to see how far they'll go to do what they want... I'm not just being paranoid am I?
What they're doing is trying to set up a case to argue that Congress needs to legislate more censorship and regulations to protect Americans from our own freedoms. What they should do is get their goddamn hand out of the pot and let the market decide what it needs. Do people want web filtering to protect their children? Let them pay for filters, or even better, take a hands-on approach with their children online. Either way, this is between consumers and producers. I don't see how the government belongs in this picture.
One of the most irritating things I find about television is the censorship. Even on shows that are above average as far as the brainpower of their target audience (e.g. Mythbusters), I find that I have to listen to goddamn beeps and blips all the time. I say let them swear, and don't censor it. If people don't like it, they won't watch, and will hopefully tell the producers why. Even better, implement some sort of on-demand filtering so my cable box censors it if I choose. Conservative Christian? Turn it on. Everyone else? Turn it off, enjoy the language. The same it true of the Internet. I don't want the FCC or Congress telling me what I can and cannot see or do online. Fuck them and the horse they rode in on. If I choose not to expose myself or my children to certain content, I will either not go to those sites, or I will allow the free market to provide content filtering software to me.
By the way, I don't usually watch much TV. Partly because of the mind-numbing dullness and idiocy, partly because I cannot stand censorship. I want my swear words!
Re:Scary..? (Score:2)
Watch USA, Comedy Central, and FX. FX, especially, is constantly full of sex, violence, and "adult language" while also having some of the most innovative and interesting shows out there (Rescue Me, Nip/Tuck, Thief, The Shield, etc).
Re:Scary..? (Score:2)
Was going to make some joke about whether you'd put this horse fucking online, but then got totally grossed out by the image of the fucking also involving the members of Congress.
Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)
I of course agree, but this is NOT about "the children".
Its disguised that way, its completely, as well put by the parent to:
to set up a case to argue that Congress needs to legislate more censorship and regulations to protect Americans from our own freedoms.
and I'll expand, by adding to limit our freedoms.
In talking with a friend last night, he believes that we are heading towards being a 3rd world country. And this guy is juiced into the government, bigtime. Former DOE and NSF guy, and still sucks grant money all the time. He said that the discrepancy between the "haves" and the "have nots" is going to keep expanding. Housing prices are through the roof. The banking, oil, and insurance companies pretty much rule this country, etc.
It won't affect me in my lifetime, nor probably my children, but after that, I have no predictions that are positive with the direction things are going.
Re:Scary..? (Score:2)
This is not rocket science. Without exception, every single society in all of history has followed the exact same pattern: Dark Ages -> Civilization -> Golden Age -> Decline -> Dark Ages. Without exception.
Already been done for DVD's... (Score:3, Informative)
The ClearPlay DVD player will take a file from ClearPlay to use to skip objectionable portions. Both the MPAA and the Directors Guild of America sued ClearPlay. The MPAA claimed it created a derivative work, the DGA claimed it harmed the brand name of its member directors.
Obligatory ATL quote (Score:2)
Now what's really known as a radio cut,
When you can't say shit, and you can't say fuck?
I really think you want to hear it
But the radio stations, see, they still gonna fear it
Yo, I thought this country was based upon freedom of speech,
Freedom of press, freedom of your own religion
To make your own decisions - that's baloney,
'cos If I gotta play by your rules, I'm bein' phoney.
-Above the Law, Freedom of Speech
Re:Scary..? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you're not, especially with a DoJ run by someone who has openly endorsed torture (in terrorism cases, not obscenity, granted -- but just wait to see how long it is before we start hearing "Al-Qaeda is funded by porn sites!") Microsoft is big and bad and scary, but the government is a great deal scarier.
Think selective enforcement. Realistically, everyone knows they're never going to get rid of internet porn, and they're never going to keep kids from seeing the stuff. That's not really the point. What is the point is that this law, if upheld, will give them a club to hold over the head of every single person in the US who posts anything on the web, ever, as well as the service providers which provide the hosting space, if even one of those postings contains a dirty word or risque picture. It doesn't mean they'll break down your door in the middle of the night -- but it means they can, if you piss them off enough. And you'll never know what constitutes "enough" until you're in handcuffs.
Re:Scary..? (Score:2)
Eager beaver bureaucrats on a moral crusade with guns and the authority to use them... sure nothing to worry about. Just move along.
Re:Another good reason (Score:2)
Re:Great. (Score:2)
Re:Two Reasons: Intent and Structure (Score:3, Insightful)
NO. the government has just cause to investigate a crime. Do you think its harmful to not wash your hands after you take a crap? Better get the government on that. We better legislate that.
In this case, the government is attempting to get broad sweeping, but detailed information about what EVERYONE is doing on the internet in an attempt to uphold its own unconstitutional law. What will they do with this information? throw it away when
Re:Wipe your Ass with the Bill of Rights (Score:5, Insightful)
The country is failing. The ride is over. All great nations fall, and when they do, they fall fast, and hard.
Its over.
Our people do not think like the Americans of old. There is no tolerance or American idealism. It's now about control and the people are too complacent and out matched.
They've been brainwashed by corperate media for the past 10 years. Conservative radio has bread intolerance and arrogance in the name of "good" But had nothing to do with "American ideals"
People have gotten so twisted, that the American idealology of old, is lost. We're widdling away at our country because we can. Our people like to tinker and blaim, so they keep chopping away at the country, for it is to blaim for all our problems.
Freedom is our problem. We can not handle it. We are not tolerant of it anymore. We want it our way, or no way at all.
You're christian or you are not. You're straight, or you are going to hell. You're on Rush Limbaughs side or you're the enemy. The republicans are always right, truth be damned. We're going to go down with the ship because despite the obvious sinking motion of the boat, we're told that its all ok because its someone else's fault.
Its over.
We're at a real turning point in our existance.
We actually LIKE slave labor now. We actually want to legalize slave labor. We have no problem with exploiting illegal aliens as long as they clean up our shit. We'll pay them less, we dont even give a shit if they're American citizens... Just as long as they show up and weed wack our lawns.
This is not America. This is our country as it is now. We welcomed immigrants, and wanted them to be apart of our country... but now we dont care if they're legal, or if we know who they even are... because WE LOVE SLAVE LABOR.
We are in a decline. We no longer beleive that people are equal, or working men and women deserve a quality life experience.
We beleive in the ultra rich, and we say the economy is doing great... while the country is in decline. The numbers say everything is great! But the truth is... the rich are simply making more money because they're not employing people. They're spreading around the world, thats why their value goes up, thats why our country looks to be economically fine... But corperations are not beholden to any country anymore. Our country is not doing fine, the corperations are.
Our people are consistantly getting the short end of the stick in our booming economy.
The law is out of countrol. Our president is a criminal. Our entire government is currupt. They spend more time fund raising than setting foot in a commitee hearing. They get handed a peice of paper on how to vote by think tanks and outside people who are not elected officials.
Policy is created by companies, buisness interests. The same people bribing our government elected officials. The same people they're getting funds from when they go and fund raise, when they should instead be representing the people in the house/senate.
The party holds the line... BOTH OF THEM.
It's over. They have this thing wrapped up in a nice little messy game of "gotcha"
And it wont end. Think about it. If you're lucky, you will be alive for 100 years at most. You only have hopefully 100 years on the planet. Truthfully, probably 65 years...
Do you think the rich power hungry people give a shit about what happens after they're dead?
Do you think senators and congressmen do? They raise funds to stay in office, so they can be elected and raise more funds to stay in office... It keeps them living a nice life, and then they die. Their children are set for life.
Do you really care about your neighbor? Do you value your family more than other people?
I'm betting on "yes". So why in the hell would you think the government gives a dam about you?
They're taking care of themselves, and th