Slashdot Mirror

It's not a law, it was just an exemption to the DMCA. read more. And it only covers you and your phone, not the people that write the tools you use.

Any reason why the secure site wouldn't work for this?

FTA: The code only targeted users accessing HTTP sites instead of HTTPS

Also, HTTPS-Everywhere is your friend (breaks the chat on Facebook for me though).

Much like the SSL cert ecosystem today provides a means of merchant identification, without there either being a single point of failure or sinister government control.

Actually, as it's currently implemented, the SSL cert ecosystem today provides many points of failure and sinister government control that compromise the whole system. Count the number of "trusted" root CAs in your web browser -- any one of them can be evil, compromised by crackers, or agree to government intrusion in order to compromise any your web-based communications. Here's a more in-depth analysis of the problem. Even worse, these "trusted" roots can create subordinate CAs, which can in turn compromise all of your X.509-secured communications. You might also be interested in the EFF's SSL Observatory, along with their analysis of the abysmal state of today's X.509 certificate infrastructure.

To solve this properly, we'll probably need to do at least the following:

• enable multiple paths of certification for any certificate -- X.509 only allows one issuer per certificate (OpenPGP allows an arbitrary number).
• provide tools to let users indicate scoped reliance on certifying authorities. For example, you might be fine with using the US Government's certifying authority to identify https://www.irs.gov/ (note: the IRS currently uses akamai's CDN, so TLS is entirely broken for it). But you might not want to accept their certifications for https://slashdot.org/ (note: slashdot doesn't currently use TLS properly site-wide either, even though it should) or any other site that is frequently critical of the US government.

I agree that we need work on distributed trust infrastructure. That's why i contribute to the monkeysphere project -- we're pushing OpenPGP-style multi-party, user-centric certification into SSH, the web, and everywhere else we can.

I'm just not convinced that the US Government is likely do this the right way. It seems probable that they'll be happy with centrally-controlled, single-trust-path certification. Or that they'll botch it in the same way that X.509 is currently botched.

This reminds me of the Texas Instruments debacle in 2009

While they don't strictly deal with Open Source, the Electronic Frontier Foundation can always use more help and often have the same ideals as the Open Source movement.

EFF is looking for lawyers with experience in copyright litigation to help fight Righthaven.

Summary already says the person in question didn't go into IP law, and is too far down another track to switch to IP. I think that rules out having "experience in copyright litigation".

EFF is looking for lawyers with experience in copyright litigation to help fight Righthaven.

If you have a background in law then you may be able to get an internship.

Also note that the volunteer rules are general guidelines and not all that strict in actuality. The EFF need all the help they can get, so contact Bernie Robinson(brobinson@eff.org) and give him a brief description of your background. They throw great parties after headways are made in cases.

Note that, unfortunately, internships are unpaid and cannot furnish J visas.

I was going to suggest the Sony, (I have the 600) using Calibre instead of the Sony Reader app, until you got to the last requirement.

I don't know of any that have open source firmware.

EFF has a comparison of the various readers as far as privacy, security, etc at

http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/2010-e-book-buyers-guide-e-book-privacy

A person bashing an entire collective of people because of a loaded article? I'm shocked.

The "right" has no problem with the Internet. It's the most free, most liberal institution on the face of the earth in the history of the earth bar none. The "right" doesn't have a problem with that. They have the same issues that the EFF has which is that even if government control of the Internet were a good idea, the FCC has NO history of being fair, free, open, or any of the ideals that Net Neutrality is about. This isn't a "Big Corp" issue, it's a freedom issue, and using the force of government to enforce freedom is something that has never been accomplished, and for good reason. I have to rely on initiating use of force i.e. attack individual rights, to ensure freedom? It's a contradiction of terms. So why would we expect it to work now?

Big Corp (i.e. telcos, cablecos, and Hollywood) are anti-neutrality, therefore the Right is anti-neutrality.

Such a massive fallacy I don't even know where to begin.

Frankly when it comes to the Internet, EFF is the most unbiasted organization that I trust. http://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise Basically it shows that Net Neutrality can be used as a trojan horse to control the content and the flow of the information on the Internet. Whenever a good idea comes up and one side of the political isle strongly supports it while other is stronly opposes it, you should never look at it as only "black-and-white" issue.

Frankly when it comes to the Internet, EFF is the most unbiasted organization that I trust. http://www.eff.org/issues/net-neutrality http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/09/net-neutrality-fcc-perils-and-promise Basically it shows that Net Neutrality can be used as a trojan horse to control the content and the flow of the information on the Internet. Whenever a good idea comes up and one side of the political isle strongly supports it while other is stronly opposes it, you should never look at it as only "black-and-white" issue.

The EFF has thankfully fought that fight for all of us:

Breaking News on EFF Victory: Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment

The Fourth limits the power of the government not of people or corporations.

I'll quote the ruling directly (also quoted in the article you linked to)

if government agents compel an ISP to surrender the contents of a subscriber's emails, those agents have thereby conducted a Fourth Amendment search, which necessitates compliance with the warrant requirement....

So the ruling says a couple things.
- The government needs a warrant to storm in and search emails.
- If they want to force a person or organization to turn over emails, that counts just like a search.
- A person or organization is NOT violating the 4th by turning over the emails- it's the government at fault.

The ruling does not clarify if an organization or person can divulge the emails without being asked or told to do so by the government.

So in the context of the story about reading your spouse's email, the 4th amendment and this court ruling are completely irrelevant.

The EFF has thankfully fought that fight for all of us:
Breaking News on EFF Victory: Appeals Court Holds that Email Privacy Protected by Fourth Amendment

"rapidshare to find your shit is exactly the same as hopping warez bbses. ... when some idiot courier forgot .c37 and spread a crc or two as well ('cuz, why not?).."

-(-1 offtopic)

More as deep:

Technology does _not_ make life harder.
Bastards do.
http://img.skitch.com/20090802-bjekq45iha8kstyjickwcnsi7i.jpg

(ellipses)(comma)

http://apple.slashdot.org/story/10/12/26/006254/Apple-Forces-Steve-Jobs-Action-Figure-Off-eBay
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/26/1552225/EFF-Offers-an-Introduction-To-Traitorware
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/12/what-traitorware ... today, alone. Ipso facto (or similar) (full stop).

Qed (or similar), ipso facto it's not -1 offtopic.

qed.

Defense rests.

Suck my thermos.

List of printers: https://www.eff.org/pages/list-printers-which-do-or-do-not-display-tracking-dots

I don't know about cameras, but somebody else who replied posted something that looks promising.

First off, the people who are talking about "rooting" an open platform are morons. The rooting occurs when the carrier and phone manufacturer -- yes I'm talking to YOU, HTC-- put gobs of needless, expensive, and ultimately pointless security on top of stock AOSP.

They want control. The EFF (did everyone donate this year?) helped affirm our rights to control over our own equipment, but the carriers and manufacturers are responding with more and more technical hurdles.

These short-sighted obstacles cost them money in R&D, which is ultimately passed on to us, the customer, or absorbed by their stockholders. These technical measures (locked emmcs) are pointless, immoral, bad for business, and an entire subculture has emerged dedicated to sidestepping them.

Google has some mixed motivations here, but one thing I can think Google might do about this is to license their Google apps (or "Gapps"-- Maps, GMail, etc.) to community firmware so that they can legitimately compete with the carriers in the market. The competition and choice would benefit the consumer (example: Gingerbread is already running on the T-Mobile G2 and Froyo is available only on other platforms through community roms not offered by the carrier, who has abandoned older phones.). Plus support for community roms would help Google reach those customers who are now "locked out" of the Google market.

The downside might be more support headaches or returned bricked phones for the phone companies. But can't they look at that as a potential new market? Yeah, when you sell someone a computer and they trash it, it's a headache. A headache you can charge them to fix. Right now people brick their phones after trying to install a rom in the shadows and then return them. If phones were treated by carriers as the computers they ARE, it would be no different than someone trashing their DELL and needing Best-Buy or whomever to reinstall Windows. Or maybe they'd pay $10/hr in support.

The point is-- if tomorrow people were locked out of their computers' operating system by the manufacturers or told what software they could run on their laptops by their ISPs, there would be revolt (I would hope). But we're slowly being conditioned to accept such control starting with smartphones, working up to tables...

what's next?

First off, the people who are talking about "rooting" an open platform are morons. The rooting occurs when the carrier and phone manufacturer -- yes I'm talking to YOU, HTC-- put gobs of needless, expensive, and ultimately pointless security on top of stock AOSP.

They want control. The EFF (did everyone donate this year?) helped affirm our rights to control over our own equipment, but the carriers and manufacturers are responding with more and more technical hurdles.

These short-sighted obstacles cost them money in R&D, which is ultimately passed on to us, the customer, or absorbed by their stockholders. These technical measures (locked emmcs) are pointless, immoral, bad for business, and an entire subculture has emerged dedicated to sidestepping them.

Google has some mixed motivations here, but one thing I can think Google might do about this is to license their Google apps (or "Gapps"-- Maps, GMail, etc.) to community firmware so that they can legitimately compete with the carriers in the market. The competition and choice would benefit the consumer (example: Gingerbread is already running on the T-Mobile G2 and Froyo is available only on other platforms through community roms not offered by the carrier, who has abandoned older phones.). Plus support for community roms would help Google reach those customers who are now "locked out" of the Google market.

The downside might be more support headaches or returned bricked phones for the phone companies. But can't they look at that as a potential new market? Yeah, when you sell someone a computer and they trash it, it's a headache. A headache you can charge them to fix. Right now people brick their phones after trying to install a rom in the shadows and then return them. If phones were treated by carriers as the computers they ARE, it would be no different than someone trashing their DELL and needing Best-Buy or whomever to reinstall Windows. Or maybe they'd pay $10/hr in support.

The point is-- if tomorrow people were locked out of their computers' operating system by the manufacturers or told what software they could run on their laptops by their ISPs, there would be revolt (I would hope). But we're slowly being conditioned to accept such control starting with smartphones, working up to tables...

what's next?

What has particularly pissed off Spanish internet community is that the copyright laws the US is blackmailing through in Spain (via 301/trade sanctions) go way beyond what has ever been proposed here in the US - i.e. 3 strikes.

In a move that has only thrown more fuel on the fire, the US ambassador to Spain took an active role in discouraging democratic debate about the new laws - agreeing by Spanish request to "influence" elected representatives so that they did not to meet or discuss the new laws with their constituents:

"[Sebastian] I was particularly concerned that the regional government of Madrid had been organizing meetings with Internet users. (...) He said that would be helpful if the ambassador could encourage regional president [Esperanza Aguirre] to stop.'s Ambassador agreed to raise the issue when meeting with the regional president."

"Spreading Democracy" in action, anyone.

Well, actually the US is winning. Successfully forcing the Spanish Gov to meet the three point US copyright lobby demands ("Spain will appear on the Watch List if it does not do three things by October 2008...") by holding the watch list over the Spanish (with all the trade sanctions that implies for non-compliance) - then the US being asked as you pointed out - to "deal" with all the opposition parties as well so they do not try to democratically debate the issue as it gets back-doored through congress.

Summary from above link: "Let’s be clear what this means; a US official apparently pressured the government [and opposition parties] of Spain to adopt novel and untested legislative measures that have never been proposed in the US Congress, and as the other cables published by El Pais show, did so at the request of US IP rightsholders.".

So winning, yes. Whether you consider that a good thing or not, is upto you...

See under "Priority Watch List" and "Special 301 review" - two big sticks used to beat countries into compliance. Or to make it even clearer in case your not understanding the cables, see: "Not-So-Gentle Persuasion: US Bullies Spain into Proposed Website Blocking Law"

It makes much more sense when read in this context.

Once you get such a filtering infrastructure in place by invoking the universal "think-of-the-children" excuse, then using said-system to filter out copyrighted material becomes a breeze. And if anyone complains, kindly remind them that complaining will only make them suspected pedophiles.

I'd vote for Indymedia, 2600, Wikileaks, Pirate Bay, Pirate Parties International, the EFF, FSF, and cDc communications to regulate the Internet. And Open Meshshould be the direction of growth. Ok then, we aren't going to get to coordinate "The Internet", we'll settle for The ParallelNet. There's enough geeks for it.

From the court's opinion linked to from the article:

https://www.eff.org/files/warshak_opinion_121410.pdf

(1) Warshak enjoyed a reasonable expectation of privacy in his emails vis-a-vis
NuVox, his Internet Service Provider. See Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).
Thus, government agents violated his Fourth Amendment rights by compelling NuVox
to turn over the emails without first obtaining a warrant based on probable cause.
However, because the agents relied in good faith on provisions of the Stored
Communications Act, the exclusionary rule does not apply in this instance. See Illinois
v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340 (1987)

I tend to give to them at several random times throughout the year. Something like EFF *needs* to exist, and it needs to have some might backing it up.

They stay on top of a wide variety of issues and *get results*. Here everyone: help them out.

Well, Amazon clearly isn't reliable from this incident. Rackspace is mostly famous for pulling the Indymedia servers without warning. I guess the answer is "try the others but who knows".

Did you know, even if you delete your profile, facebook feeds you a cookie anyway on every hit, they record your IP and crosscheck it with other sites to compile a list of ip's you've used along with every site you are detected to be in.

That info is aggregated into your "deleted" facebook profile anyway.

And did you know? Since many websites are willing to sell their users they alias their trackers to by pass the same origin policy, i.e. ad.hi5.com is actually ad.yieldmanager.com

This goes beyond collecting public data for marketing purposes and into population surveillance, these companies aren't trying to track you, they are trying to defeat any attempts people might devise to regain privacy, short of stop using any cellphones or the Internet.

Which makes a lot of sense when you realize facebook has ties with the CIA.

As has been noted elsewhere, a number of the sites seized were, in fact, quite legitimate ones.

Bypassing due process is quick and cheap in the (very) short term, but an expensive disaster over the long haul.

I highly doubt that this "do not track" option prevents all environment variables from being sent. Browser data is quite often as unique as a thumbprint, even data that has nothing to do with cookies or privacy. Preventing the transmission of this data would break a lot of functionality designed for IE - think of all those messages on "enterprise websites" that say "Your browser does not have [control]. Please go here to download." That data in itself can make you trackable.

Sure, but that's far fetched from the ability that cookies and the likes of Google Analytics offer for marketers. It's stupid to say "this won't end it all" and think it's better to do nothing.

Only the uninformed think I'm stupid when I say these privacy features won't stop the tracking.

Please, educate yourself to the fact that 54 of the top 100 websites use Flash Cookies (in conjunction with HTTP Cookies). Also take note of the Evercookie and other such fingerprinting systems such as Panopticlick.

You don't have to add features to your web-browser in order to eliminate tracking. I use a VM and a commonly distributed VM image of an OS with a browser installed. Besides the IP address I look just like everyone else using the same VM image. My IP is transient, so I turn off my modem when I'm not using it.

It's foolish to call others stupid when you are ignorant of the topic at hand.

You should speak with EFF about this. They might be able to offer you (real) legal advice, and if there is a defense to be mounted, might represent you. http://eff.org/

I know I'm preaching to the choir, here, but human-nature says that most people (even Slashdotters) are watching this unfold without realizing they can be a part of it.

The WL episode is showing us that our own politicians would readily abandon core values of democracy in order to avoid embarrassment. It also clearly demonstrates that we live in a world where our personal communications can readily be disrupted at the whim of private corporations under pressure from these same politicians.

Democracy can only thrive with the uninhibited exchange of communications between individuals. If you want to help ensure democracy, do any of the following:


1) Run a TOR server ( http://www.torproject.org/ ). This is software that helps provide freedom and privacy by encrypting and distributing network communications. If you don't want to run TOR on your machine, rent a Virtual Private Server (VPS) and do it on someone else's box.


2) Support the EFF ( http://www.eff.org/ ). This organization understands technology and knows that in the digital age, information is power.


3) Support open-source distributed alternatives to web-based software-as-a-service. EveryDNS, Paypal, Twitter, Amazon's EC2, and even our beloved Google are points of vulnerability in democracy since their fundamental obligation is to shareholders instead of to an innate code of ethics. How would you find information if Google bowed to Government pressure? The only thing that will ensure corporations stay in line is the existence of alternatives such as a distributed search engine (http://yacy.de/ ).


4) Support open-source software by using it, contributing time or money to its development, and requesting that our Governments make policies to use it. The world would be a very different place if the power of public-key-encryption was kept solely in Government and Corporate hands. Only Free and Open Source Software ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open_source_software ) ensures that all members of society who use information technology are on the same footing.


5) Let others know what is at stake, spread the word. Democracy takes active participation, and this takes patience and explanation so that nontechnical Constituents have the understanding that you possess.


Our communications technology is only a tool and can be used to both facilitate democracy and better the world, or to enslave humankind. We are witnessing the first infowar of the digital age, and the powers that be will use it to push hard for bans on encryption, crackdown on peer-to-peer communication, and other information tools.

Will you watch silently and let information technology turn into a tool of repression, or will you take a stand while you still can? The race is on, do something!

That may be more difficult than you think, especially if you do not want to break things.
https://panopticlick.eff.org/

I agree, my guess is they're using some techniques like panopticlick https://panopticlick.eff.org/

I have a linux desktop with a couple programming fonts added, so i'm unique on the eff site.

If you're so certain, try the Panopticlick from the EFF. See how unique you truly are.

Make fun all you like but this is already being done and works rather well.
Try your own computer (and that's using very basic fingerprinting).
That a tiny percentage of users may take measures against such fingerprinting is irrelevant. At worst they are an irrelevantly small number and the fact such machines would appear to be attempting to avoid fingerprinting might be enough of a risk identifier in itself (for ecommerce transactions for example).

There have been fingerprinting systems posted to Slashdot that were surprisingly specific.

Panopticlick, the one that EFF runs for awareness says I'm unique, out of 1.2M visitors.

My plugin config is unique. My font config is 1 / 16,000 users. Admittedly, I'm using a non-default browser on a niche operating system, but you'd be surprised what does install things like fonts and plugins - applications (like Office), etc.

How about we make it a 64 bit id and call it an ip address? Having a static, routable IP address would make it worth it to me. Then when I really want privacy I can use a proxy.

It looks like in this case they are trying to use the UserAgent and other info available to javascript, like the EFF warned about. Check that link out, you can discover how unique your browser is.

Many secure peer-to-peer systems exist, generally based on cryptography; often they provide more security than centralized systems.

For instance, Tor uses secure cryptography to provide anonymity in a way that just wouldn't work in a centralized system. i2p uses cryptographic security as well.

What seems to be driving the copyright enforcers nuts is simply that Syfert's package of boilerplate letters contains one raising a "personal jurisdiction" issue. The copyright enforcers have been filing all their suits in one Federal court, in the District of Columbia, regardless of where the defendant is. In such cases, where the defendant has no connection to the district where the court is, it's routine to object, and force the plaintiff to refile in the defendant's district court. The lawyers for the US Copyright Group then have to sue in dozens of different district courts. They hate that.

Here's an example of such a motion. Such motions are usually granted. The EFF has a long filing on this.

What seems to be driving the copyright enforcers nuts is simply that Syfert's package of boilerplate letters contains one raising a "personal jurisdiction" issue. The copyright enforcers have been filing all their suits in one Federal court, in the District of Columbia, regardless of where the defendant is. In such cases, where the defendant has no connection to the district where the court is, it's routine to object, and force the plaintiff to refile in the defendant's district court. The lawyers for the US Copyright Group then have to sue in dozens of different district courts. They hate that.

Here's an example of such a motion. Such motions are usually granted. The EFF has a long filing on this.

Graham Syfert, the "Copyright Defense Lawyer", is an EFF-listed lawyer.

Do you think that the EFF accidentally mistook the manager of a "phoney storefront" for a lawyer credible enough to refer people to?

If you want to help, setup a Tor Relay (make sure you have the DirPort (9030/tcp) and ORPort (usually 443/tcp[windoze] or 9001/tcp[linux]) forwarded in your router/firewall - or use uPNP. Make sure you have at least 20kb/sec outbound bandwidth. I am donating 200KB/sec both ways. You can download Tor from http://torproject.org/

I recommend downloading the full Vidalia Bundle which includes Tor, Polipo, and Tor Button for FireFox. You do not have to be an exit node if you do not want to take on the risk.

Relay Information: https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-doc-relay.html.en

If you plan on using Tor as a client, I recommend EFF's HTTPS Plugin: http://www.eff.org/https-everywhere

>internet firms should 'share the responsibility' of protecting children."

Or you could just pay fucking attention to your own kids.

"Two-point-five million use America Online. That's like a city. Parents wouldn't let their kids go wandering in a city of 2.5 million people without them, or without knowing what they're going to be doing." - Pam McGraw, America Online spokesperson, in "Children Lured From Home by Internet Acquaintances" by David Foster, Associated Press, June 13 95
from http://w2.eff.org/Misc/EFF/?f=quotes.eff.txt

Not even mentioning that the internet is a global system, web sites come from anywhere. It's going to be impossible to get every country in the world to agree on something like this. And filtering doesn't work either. Oddly, if filtering worked on peoples individual computers they might stop pushing for filtering the entire internet (which obviously also wont work)

The EFF is astroturfing for the hardware maker

Er? This is like saying that the ACLU is astroturfing for the newspapers when they advocate freedom of the press because the newspapers donate to the ACLU and benefit from a free press. I'm pretty sure the EFF would be submitting the same brief regardless of how much money they get from specific donors -- people give them money as a result of their positions, not to get them to change their positions.

Or, to put it a different way, EFF gets plenty of donations from "readers like you", so to speak. How many non-music-industry-executive/lawyer individuals do you think willingly donate money to the RIAA lobbying & litigation fund? My guess would be somewhere between zero and none.

Regardless of how long it takes, there is no reason to search laptops at the border.

However, courts have ruled that no reason is even needed:

On April 21st (2008), the Ninth Circuit held in United States v. Arnold that the Fourth Amendment does not require government agents to have reasonable suspicion before searching laptops or other digital devices at the border, including international airports. Customs and Border Patrol are likely to use the opinion to argue that almost every property search at the border is constitutionally acceptable.

The point is correct though. At US customs inside the US, the electronic device has already been inspected and allowed on a plane by the airport security theatre at the port of origin. Apart from determining if import tax needs to be paid on the electronic device, there is no legitimate reason for customs to be mounting and duping hard drives (and demanding passwords - which is NOT allowed, but they still browbeat travelers into thinking it is). This is pure Gestapo in the US.

So in conclusion, the secret state police will detain US citizens and their devices when crossing the border through the 'lawless zone', with no reason needed. If you have nothing to hide, you'd still better encrypt every bit on the drive against a random one-time pad hard drive (that has never crossed a border, is secure while you are abroad, and completely zero-wiped upon your return), and replace some surface-mount components on your hard drive's circuit board with dummies so it won't fire up for goons at the border.

Slashdotters, WRITE to your representatives and let them know this is not something that has universal support. That is, write a handwritten letter, so it can't be as easily ignored. Talk to your colleagues and let them know about this bill and what it will do.

For those of you who haven't been keeping up with this: this is a bill that will undoubtedly harm the Internet as a platform for free speech.

The least we can do is put up a fight.

We certainly shouldn't blindly trust proposed free speech and privacy regulatory changes.

People will thing it is personal privacy being protected, but we'll see corporations wanting "privacy" as if they were individuals. AT&T is already looking for less transparency.

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/11/eff-brief-privacy-protections-corporations

Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?

The internet is used for a lot more than downloading music, and is often used as a way of distributing information. For the common citizen (who doesn't own a TV station), short of speaking in a street/park with a megaphone, this is often the only way they have of communicating. The internet a medium of communication, facilitating speech even if in electronic form.

For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.

Well, if I want unbiased information about politics, the internet is probably where I would start. The internet is the only form of media where anyone regardless of how wealthy they are can put something, and if you take that away, making the only form of free speech privately owned and controlled, then it's not quite free anymore. Sure it's free for the people who own the media, but anyone else only gets to say something if it's in line with the message the owner wants expressed. Truly free speech means even the people you (or the elite class) does not like, and currently the internet is the only place where that (usually) happens.

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

People actually do use Twitter for this sort of thing, though I more often see Facebook used for that. Also, use of one's own online service, like hosting your own website for coordination of protests, collaborating over an IRC channel or other chat room, web streaming (or use of YouTube), or just plain e-mail communication, are all perfectly legitimate uses of the internet for assembly, and very prone to use for political motives by the masses. If the powers that be can argue there is copyright infringement (or linkage, like with thepiratebay.org) going on from protest-gathering-website.com, then they can justify blocking it just like any other website and thereby prevent assembly on it. The way the DMCA works now (and I don't think this law will be any better), any time an issue is time-sensitive or the defendants lack resources to defend themselves in court, you (the powers that be) don't even have to prove you own the copyrighted work. The DMCA wasn't even intended for censorship, while this particular bill is. Same goes for pretty much any other website.

Aside from religion (unless they decide Islamic websites are illegal or something), the ability of the government to censor parts of the internet does apply to the 1st amendment. Futhermore, copyright has already been (ab)used many times to censor free speech, so this is not just a hypothetical scenario. To claim copyright cannot, was not, or will not be used for online political censorship or that a law aimed at online censorship will not be abused is either naive or lying.

Freedom of speech...really, when you get right down to it, when you download music, that's a form of censorship. You're taking money away from the MPAA, and that's money they use to bribe congressmen and senators and presidents. How can they redress the Government when they don't have any money?

The internet is used for a lot more than downloading music, and is often used as a way of distributing information. For the common citizen (who doesn't own a TV station), short of speaking in a street/park with a megaphone, this is often the only way they have of communicating. The internet a medium of communication, facilitating speech even if in electronic form.

For freedom of the press, how important is it to be able for the media to access the Internet? You have newspapers and television and radio. Admittedly, half of those are official government propaganda machines and the other half is owned by media conglomerates, but the idea is still there.

Well, if I want unbiased information about politics, the internet is probably where I would start. The internet is the only form of media where anyone regardless of how wealthy they are can put something, and if you take that away, making the only form of free speech privately owned and controlled, then it's not quite free anymore. Sure it's free for the people who own the media, but anyone else only gets to say something if it's in line with the message the owner wants expressed. Truly free speech means even the people you (or the elite class) does not like, and currently the internet is the only place where that (usually) happens.

Assembly? For online stuff? Come on, it's not like you could use something like twitter to tell the outside world about how things are going in your country.

People actually do use Twitter for this sort of thing, though I more often see Facebook used for that. Also, use of one's own online service, like hosting your own website for coordination of protests, collaborating over an IRC channel or other chat room, web streaming (or use of YouTube), or just plain e-mail communication, are all perfectly legitimate uses of the internet for assembly, and very prone to use for political motives by the masses. If the powers that be can argue there is copyright infringement (or linkage, like with thepiratebay.org) going on from protest-gathering-website.com, then they can justify blocking it just like any other website and thereby prevent assembly on it. The way the DMCA works now (and I don't think this law will be any better), any time an issue is time-sensitive or the defendants lack resources to defend themselves in court, you (the powers that be) don't even have to prove you own the copyrighted work. The DMCA wasn't even intended for censorship, while this particular bill is. Same goes for pretty much any other website.

Aside from religion (unless they decide Islamic websites are illegal or something), the ability of the government to censor parts of the internet does apply to the 1st amendment. Futhermore, copyright has already been (ab)used many times to censor free speech, so this is not just a hypothetical scenario. To claim copyright cannot, was not, or will not be used for online political censorship or that a law aimed at online censorship will not be abused is either naive or lying.