Slashdot Mirror

You wouldn't be able to do it on hosted webspace - those things usually only allow you to use the http daemon provided. You'd need to actually rent a server, which is usually quite expensive.

For SSL proxying, you'd need to use something like this - never set one up, but it looks about right. Of course, the server would need to be outside the UK to avoid getting logged. If you don't want to go to the trouble of setting up your own, you could try something like FreeNet*, Tor*, JAP** or just a random anonymous SSL proxy (Proxomitron or MultiProxy might prove useful here). If you're a little less paranoid, you could use a CGI proxy.

* Warning: using these systems may mean that child porn is passing through your system, iirc.
** I know that at one point this system was discovered to have a government backdoor in it, but I think they cleaned up their act.

Get Tor (http://tor.eff.org/ and this legislation has no effect. The only problem with ToR is that it slows your connection way down.

Any smart criminal should be using it already.

The question is, can timing attacks (and other things) be implemented if so much information about every connection is known? Of course, if you use ToR servers outside the EU, then they can't.

"In Iowa, he recieved the MPAA letter through his cable ISP"

  One of the *main* reasons to not use most cable ISP's. At least Verizon defended it's users ID's.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/RIAA_v_Verizon/

tor completely anonymizes web traffic, and azureus supports it: http://tor.eff.org/ http://azureus.sourceforge.net/doc/AnonBT/Tor/howt o_0.5.htm http://archives.seul.org/or/talk/Jun-2005/msg00075 .html And i2p anonymous network: http://www.i2p.net/ http://azureus.sourceforge.net/plugin_details.php? plugin=azneti2p&docu=1#1 Please note that you really should only use it for the tracker and http traffic. Or just keep using encrypted headers.

I see no reason to litter my language with advertisements for what I maintain is a poor product (runs on proprietary software, lacks important features, remarkably expensive, Apple's terms of service with iTunes—what is commonly used with an iPod—change after the purchase).

True, but if you wanna play the numbers-game:

Only approximately 4.5 million users will be using podcasts by the end of 2005.

Up to 24 million users may be infected by the SONY rootkits. In addition, there ARE other rootkits out there...

Ah, well - I just felt like being a smart-ass.

Tor: An anonymous Internet communication system Tor is a toolset for a wide range of organizations and people that want to improve their safety and security on the Internet. Using Tor can help you anonymize web browsing and publishing, instant messaging, IRC, SSH, and other applications that use the TCP protocol. Tor also provides a platform on which software developers can build new applications with built-in anonymity, safety, and privacy features. Your traffic is safer when you use Tor, because communications are bounced around a distributed network of servers, called onion routers. Tor's technology aims to provide Internet users with protection against "traffic analysis," a form of network surveillance that threatens personal anonymity and privacy, confidential business activities and relationships, and state security. Instead of looking at the content of your communications, traffic analysis tracks where your data goes and when, as well as how much is sent. Tor aims to make traffic analysis more difficult by preventing websites, eavesdroppers, and even the onion routers themselves from tracing your communications online. This means Tor lets you decide whether to identify yourself when you communicate. Tor's security is improved as its user base grows and as more people volunteer to run servers. Please consider volunteering your time or volunteering your bandwidth. And remember that this is development code--it's not a good idea to rely on the current Tor network if you really need strong anonymity. We are now actively looking for new sponsors and funding. The Tor project was launched by The Free Haven Project in 2002. In the past, Tor development was funded by contracts with the Naval Research Lab (inventor of onion routing) and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (who still kindly hosts our website). Sponsors of Tor get personal attention, better support, publicity (if they want it), and get to influence the direction of our research and development!

Try EFF.org.

Maybe the article was written with humour and flame-bait, and maybe it was written in a way to maximise slashdot potential, but I don't think The Register would make up something like this, being so subtle.

For one thing, I'm sure Sony would sue their arses.

Anyway, it took 5 seconds to check the EFF website, and it is indeed real:

See here

If the EFF has such a poor track record, maybe they should...

Does the EFF have a poor track record? The first post pointed to the EFF victories page which is chock full of good work. Yes, I agree with your sentiment. If the EFF sucked, we shouldn't let them hold us down. But I don't happen to hear a sucking sound at the moment, and unless you do, maybe you (and the author of TFA) could save the potential doom and gloom of the results of such suckage until it actually happens.

TW

There was a link in the first post. EFF: Legal Victories.

I won't try to argue here, but I will suggest, in the interest of balance, that you check out EFF's list of legal victories.

See the EFF's legal victories page.

There are some fairly important legal victories on that page. It is simply a case, it seems, of harping on the EFF for their failures without recognizing that they're human, and they lose cases. They also win cases.

...but the fact remains that if precedents are being set here...

You mean Precidents like These? Or lobbying efforts like getting rid of the broadcast flag?

Should any organization be required to win 100% of its legal battles (on behalf of the public I might add) in order to gain support? I don't think setting an impossible standard is a helpful guide for deciding what organizations to support.

The EFF has been fairly effective in legal matters, and even more effective in educational areas like lobbying. AS that is the key to a better future (better to never have a bad law passed than to fight it latre through the courts) it is important to support the EFF as they are pretty much the ONLY group that understands the deep technological chasms laws can veer into. Are you honestly going to trust the ACLU to handle stuff like P2P?

For those who see the value in having an organization fighting for technical rights, you can donate to the EFF here. I donate every year and really all of us in the technical field should feel ashamed if we are not supporting the people that brought down things like the broadcast flag.

...but the fact remains that if precedents are being set here...

You mean Precidents like These? Or lobbying efforts like getting rid of the broadcast flag?

Should any organization be required to win 100% of its legal battles (on behalf of the public I might add) in order to gain support? I don't think setting an impossible standard is a helpful guide for deciding what organizations to support.

The EFF has been fairly effective in legal matters, and even more effective in educational areas like lobbying. AS that is the key to a better future (better to never have a bad law passed than to fight it latre through the courts) it is important to support the EFF as they are pretty much the ONLY group that understands the deep technological chasms laws can veer into. Are you honestly going to trust the ACLU to handle stuff like P2P?

For those who see the value in having an organization fighting for technical rights, you can donate to the EFF here. I donate every year and really all of us in the technical field should feel ashamed if we are not supporting the people that brought down things like the broadcast flag.

I've worked with EFF's legal folks and they are very, very good.

And when we went to court, we won.

Bonhomie Snoutintroff is a plain-spoken strong leader in cyberspace. He did poorly in school but his family is rich and well connected, so he's served as CEO of numerous, well-known Internet ventures that for various reasons unrelated to his forward-looking guidance no longer exist. He developed a cocaine and alcohol problem, although he refuses to dwell on the past: his mission is to bring honor and dignity to the IT profession. His keen insight as a global techno-visionary is matched only by his Christian humility.

This case dealt with a cell phone as the technology used to track, so what. The technology used is irrelevant. A person is being tracked without a warrant, that's illegal.

...it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to engage in an act of security testing, if such act does not constitute infringement under this title or a violation of applicable law other than this section, including section 1030 of title 18 and those provisions of title 18 amended by the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986.

I also completely agree with KarmaOverDogma.

Saying that all elected officials & voters are evil is sure an easy way out.
Takes a lot more work to actually have a say doesn't it?

Can't promise my numbers are completely accurate but last I heard an elected official and their associated aids etc... consider a letter from one person as representing the views of at least 10 people. And an e-mail slightly less weighty.

Now consider the influence of a group like the EFF (Electronic Frontier Foundation: http://www.eff.org/ ). Hundreds if not thousands of voters agreeing on a topic, times ten, if they each send a letter of complaint to the applicable elected officials. The voices of 10 people may not be much but try 10 20 or 30 thousand.
Hell if the number of people participating gets past the 10,000 mark I think it's likely their influence would overshadow any lobyying by the recording industry.

Giving up is no solution. If you want to give up then I recommend more listening & less speaking. Otherwise actually make your voice heard instead of idly complaining.

-ME®

An important bit of context: John Perry Barlow co-founded the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

His position on the issue shouldn't be surprising.

  "John Perry Barlow (lyricist, but he has other claims to fame outside the Dead) was not happy"

Other claims to fame like co-founder of the EFF

It not voting that's evil, its who you vote for.

At this stage no one should be surprised that voting democrat or republican produces the same results. It has for the last 20 yrs or longer.

However, lumping those that vote for other parties with those clueless republican and democrats is down right stupid. While third party voters may not be successful, they are at least trying.

As for the EFFs track record, just look at http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/. Its not all failures, once again you over simplify and look stupid.

"almost all stopped voting". so not letting just the stupid clueless people that will continue to vote republican and democrat continue to control everything is the solution?

Or should all voting be eliminated and a dictator selected? Or a committee?

Its nice that you identify problems, the shame is that you dont propose any workable solutions. Thanks for nothing.

From Electronic Frontier Foundation, Memorandum, Date: November 1, 2005, To: Defense counsel in RIAA and MPAA individual file sharing suits, Chris Conley, EFF Legal Intern, Re: parental Liability for Copyright Infringement by Minor Children

Plaintiffs, usually record companies, may attempt to bring claims against the parents of children who allegedly infringe copyright via either indirect copyright liability or state parental liability statutes. This memorandum is intended as background research aimed at summarizing the relevant legal principles.

A claim of indirect copyright infringement may be premised on the theory of vicarious liability, which requires the right and ability to control the infringing action and a financial interest in the infringement, or contributory infringement, which requires knowledge of and participation in the infringement; each of these elements may be challenged by a parent. Claims based on state parental liability statutes will depend on the precise statute being considered, but in many states the statute may not apply to actions based on copyright infringement or may be preempted by the Copyright Act based on either express or conflict preemption.

For more details, read the whole thing.

Obviously the submitter didn't RTFA, so here are some real links: Here Here and here

Some history about the Linux flap:
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/DeCSS/Gallery/archive/g arfinkel.txt

Some other page I found by accident about file sharing:
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/howto-notgetsued.php

THC Credit can extrapolate numbers from real cards and check them: http://www.thc.org/download.php?t=r&f=thc-c191.zip

You should signup using Tor as your proxy too: http://tor.eff.org/

Also some cool google stuff:
How to Verify Credit Card Numbers In Perl
Sample credit card numbers to use for testing http://perl.about.com/library/weekly/aa080600g.htm
cardware:
http://www.flashback.se/library/software/carding.s html

(Caveat: IANAL)

All you have established is that it is very *likely* that someone thought Sigenthaler was involved. But likelyhood is not proof or truth.

Because you have not established the truth of the statement, you may not conclude that it is not defamatory.

What's more, if Siegenthaler were a private figure, even if you could establish the truth, you could still be sued for defamation merely for publishing information that no "reasonable person" would publish about a private citizen.

Source: http://www.eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-defamation.php

Maybe Ou is up at 4AM protecting Microsoft's customers for free because it doesn't cost Microsoft anything. Microsoft needs a class action suit loss, or steep hikes in their insurance rates anticipating such a loss. The days when publication of unsafe product exposés like Unsafe at Any Speed transform an industry are long gone. Industries have learned to insulate themselves from books read only by the tiny American intelligentsia by publishing vast overbalancing PR. Some industries even have bought immunity from liability for their unsafe products. Since the Supreme Court has now found that software companies are liable for damages caused by their users' use of their unmodified products, maybe we will see Microsoft liable for the vast damage caused when people use their products the way they promote them. Or maybe we're looking forward to an imminent release of a WiFi "Microsoft Machinegun".

But what does Ho Chi Minh city have to do with this alerting system. Anyhow, good idea, bad idea. There are always points, counterpoints. Before someone trolls along about privacy rights bear in mind CALEA, DCS1000, ECHELON, CAPPS, and TIA. Nothing will really stop them from doing what they want to do, and quite frankly I think I would see pandemonium in the street before I would hear my cellphone ringing.

This message is from the center for disease control. We are now watching you leave 1 Main Street and are walking into a Bird Flu contaminated area. Please stand by while we do nothing more than warn you and run your everyday minutes with a false positive warning based on terrorist threats

Furthermore, it is emerging that the version of Windows CE used by Diebold is both heavily customized and full of dynamically loaded libraries. As a result, there are strong grounds for the conclusion that the operating system is not unmodified commercial off the shelf software (COTS), and that with this extensive use of dynamic linkage, we cannot even tell if the system being run on a particular voting machine resembles the system that was disclosed in the configuration documents submitted with this system when it went through the FEC/NASED approval process. http://www.cs.uiowa.edu/~jones/voting/dieboldftp.h tml

Diebold and other ATM vendors say they're "hardening" the installations of Windows they ship with their ATMs by disabling unnecessary services and ports and removing files that support peripherals http://www.computerworld.com/networkingtopics/netw orking/story/0,10801,89119,00.html

Diebold patched the Windows CE operating system in Georgia:"Williams does acknowledge, however, that a month and a half before the November election, he worked with Diebold to apply a patch to the Windows CE operating system. The voting machines run on version 3.0 of Windows CE, he said, and they patched it to correct problems they were having with the system" http://www.votescam.com/Patchelections.php More about how we beat Diebold and the fight for Verified Voting in North Carolina here at http://www.ncvoter.net/
And much thanks owed to the Electronic Frontier Foundation for representing us in this case. http://www.eff.org/

The Electronic Frontier Foundation intervened in the case on behalf of a North Carolina voter, Joyce McCloy. Which I believe pleased Diebold no end.

d. (Disclosure: I work for EFF. What's more, I would be overjoyed if you joined us)

The Electronic Frontier Foundation intervened in the case on behalf of a North Carolina voter, Joyce McCloy. Which I believe pleased Diebold no end.

d. (Disclosure: I work for EFF. What's more, I would be overjoyed if you joined us)

If you have a device driver named Sbcphid.sys (which shows up as a hidden non-plug-and-play device named Sbcphid when active), you've got MediaMax and should remove it.

Only the EFF has mentioned MediaMax in the various legal claims against Sony, and Sony has remained silent about it in public as well. Obviously they're not sorry about using DRM at all -- they're just sorry they got caught.

>>the patriot act gave the DOJ to ability to monitor anything when they invoke a terrorism charge.

Except it didn't. Most of the PA just codified existing practice as Slate's four part analysis piece explains.

What parts were more radical (215) have been struck down as unconstitutional as can be seen on the EFF's (join EFF now!! the sky is falling!!) Patriot Act webpage.
One might want to notice that the PA renewal substantially weakened govt power while demanding new accountability.

Don't let the facts stop a good bout of paranoia. It is more fun to pretend that life is a black and white cyberpunk airport thriller novel than to recognize shades of gray. It makes us feel more important.

Attention slashbots: your next move is the slippery slope. In which you argue that searches approved by judges aren't bad but searches not approved are and therefore we need to freak out about about warranted searches because they might lead to unwarranted searches.

Here's what the EFF had to say about Audible Magic.

You can always use eMule (win32) / amule (linux/max/e.a.) Shareaza (win32) or limewire (win/max/javathingy) to perform those searches for you.

The music labels got to realize if they push the p2p networks too hard the p2p clients will go underground into anonymous networks

This has made it to slashdot, when i thoghut most people knew data tracks can be better plugged using a pen (I don't want tape comming off inside my player ta).

and the fact that the EFF is now pushing fully ahead with it's lawsuit against Sony has completely missed the news so far http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_11.php#00419 2

We use Microsoft Windows Media Digital Rights Management software to make sure all the music you have is fast, safe and protected. For more information about Microsoft DRM, click here.

Won't play on any open systems or open source operating system, won't play in any open-source player, can't be burned to an audio CD, won't play in either of my MP3 players (only one of which is an iPod), won't even play on Windows 2000 unless I agree to let Microsoft install a rootkit called Windows Media Player 9 (Windows XP comes with Microsoft's rootkit pre-installed, which is another reason I'm sticking with Windows 2000 for my game console).

Since I don't have a Golden Ear, I'll stick with the honor-system DRM that iTMS uses, or buy physical CDs since they're often cheaper than iTMS for classical music, and there's a much better range available, and the great stuff I find on audioblogs is rarely available through label-driven digital music stores anyway.

For more information about Microsoft DRM, click here.

$100,000 per rootkit'd CD times 20,000,000 million CDs = $2,000,000,000,000 (2 trillion dollars)

EFF has launched a class-action suit against Sony.

EFF Files Class Action Lawsuit Against Sony BMG. Sony BMG is also facing at least six other class action lawsuits nationwide and an action by the Texas Attorney General.

I don't see how this has anything to do with technology being used to protect intellectual property.

The RIAA is behaving just like Microsoft did with SCO, taking advantage of the situation and feeding FUD supporting stupidity.

No wonder everyone hates the RIAA.

I'm still waiting for some documented evidence about the failure rate of musicians who start their own record label and go bankrupt. Can you give me the names of ten musicians you know of - who started their own record label and went bankrupt? You seem to be short of evidence to support your viewpoint.

Here's more documentation to support my viewpoint, another musician who started his own label A&M records Herb Alpert. It's at http://www.rapcointelpro.com/Start%20A%20Record%20 Label.htm You didn't make any comments on Ani Difranco - do you know who she is?

Here's a musician explaining how major record labels screw musicians:

" Matt Johnson, from The The, has weighed in the digital music issue. The The will be releasing their stuff on the web for free download - see below.

THE THE VERSUS THE CORPORATE MONSTER After much deliberation I have decided to offer track by track, week by week free downloads of my latest album 'NakedSelf' from my official website: www.thethe.com This decision has not been taken lightly and below I explain the reasons why. As the tensions between artist and merchant are rising very fast I also want to stress the positive in this statement as I think this is an exhilarating time to be involved in music.

I'VE SEEN THE FUTURE, AND IT WILL BE ........ A battle between the powers that be versus the powers that will be. Through their short sighted arrogance and greed, the major label media conglomerates are sowing the seeds for their own destruction. Artists are now poised to come off the nipple of the major labels and finally stand on their own two feet. With this greater responsibility will come a greater workload but artists can finally become masters of their own destinies. New technology, both in cheap, high quality recording equipment and the tremendous potential of the Internet, mean that it's possible for musicians to fund their own recordings, own their own copyrights, distribute their own music and control their own careers. The audience will begin to deal with the artist direct and the middle men will be cut down to size.

http://www.eff.org/IP/Audio/20000607_thethe_statem ent.html

And here is more documentation from MSNBC:

Making Their Own Breaks

Technology is helping aspiring writers, musicians, artists and filmmakers go from amateur to pro. Who needs an agent when you've got the net?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9378645/site/newswee k/

And from France .... more documentation:

CANNES, France -- Rock veterans Peter Gabriel and Brian Eno are launching a provocative new musicians' alliance that would cut against the industry grain by letting artists sell their music online instead of only through record labels. With the Internet transforming how people buy and listen to songs, musicians need to act now to claim digital music's future, Gabriel and Eno argued Monday as they handed out a slim red manifesto at a huge deal-making music conference known as Midem. They call the plan the "Magnificent Union of Digitally Downloading Artists" -- or MUDDA, which has a less lofty ring to it. "Unless artists quickly grasp the possibilities that are available to them, then the rules will get written, and they'll get written without much input from artists," said Eno, who has a long history of experimenting with technology. By removing record labels from the equation, artists can set their own prices and set their own agendas, said the two independent musicians, who hope to launch the online alliance within a month.

And some more documentation:

http://www.cut-up.com/news/detail.php?sid=362

"Every musician should have his own record label"

?

And more documentation:

http://www.afm.org/public/musicians/recordla

I've just done a prototype in C++ for the Tor GUI context http://tor.eff.org/gui/index.html. If you don't believe me just see http://wyoguide.sourceforge.net/index.php?page=tor mgr.html.

Of course, IANAL, IAJIILIACL.

From the SCC vs Lexmark appellate decision:

But even if a work is in some sense "original" under 102(a), it still may not be copyrightable because 102(b) provides that "[i]n no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of [its] form." 17 U.S.C. 102(b). ...

For similar reasons, when external factors constrain the choice of expressive vehicle, the doctrine of "scènes à faire"--"scenes," in other words, "that must be done"--precludes copyright protection. See Twentieth Century Fox Film, 361 F.3d at 319-20; see generally Nimmer 13.03[B][4]. In the literary context, the doctrine means that certain phrases that are "standard, stock, . . . or that necessarily follow from a common theme or setting" may not obtain copyright protection. Gates Rubber, 9 F.3d at 838. In the computer-software context, the doctrine means that the elements of a program dictated by practical realities--e.g., by hardware standards and mechanical specifications, software standards and compatibility requirements, computer manufacturer design standards, target industry practices, and standard computer programming practices--may not obtain protection. Id. (citing case examples); see Sega Enters., 977 F.2d at 1524 ("To the extent that a work is functional or factual, it may be copied."); Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1473 (9th Cir. 1992) (affirming district court's finding that "[p]laintiffs may not claim copyright protection of an . . . expression that is, if not standard, then commonplace in the computer software industry"). As "an industry-wide goal," programming "[e]fficiency" represents an external constraint that figures prominently in the copyrightability of computer programs. Altai, 982 F.2d at 708.

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?

Thank you for your on-topic post! It is appalling that their hasn't been more discussion on the issue considering how important to us it is, individually & collectively.

Doc has a great quote from Larry Lessig in his article on the second front of this battle, the copyfight. The extremists in that front are not Lessig & Creative Commons (as many entities would have us believe) but the:

...copyright extremists of the Sonny Bono school, which favors extension of copyright to "forever less one day". In... [the other front of the] debate the radicals are the carriers. We need to fight them, just as Larry and crew need to fight the copyright extremists: by re-framing the subject.

This war to keep the net free (as in unrestricted access to content) is being fought on two fronts and both should be considered equally important, IMO. The writing on the wall regarding copyright issues has been there since the Copyright Term Extension act hit the legislative fan. The carrier front was announced to the masses right here just a couple weeks ago, and (in general) summarily dismissed--I think most of us thought the SBC guy was just plain nuts since we're all already paying for connections. I'm very glad to see this articl by Doc Searls laying out issues of both battlefronts. He closes that right now is the time for us to act on these issues, and he's absolutely correct.

Creative Commons is having a fund raiser and the response has been woefully lacking thus far. It's not even so much about money. They could lose their non-profit status if they can't show support from individuals!

Are we members of EFF? I don't necessarily agree with every position they take but at least they keep me informed on what subversive anti-free-internet proposals are working their way through congress, and how I can help stop them. May I suggest the following actions based on Docs article:

1. We have to stay informed (join EFF or at least sign up for their e-mail bulletins)
2. We have to support the organizations fighting for our freedoms.(Five bucks right now towards Creative Commons isn't going to kill anybodys budget. If you can afford to access the internet, you're probably NOT destitute. If you blog post a button for them.)
3. We have to be freedom fighters and do what we can (i.e. call our reps & senators) to assist in this cause.

If we sit back and assume that the freedoms we enjoy on the internet today are just going to go on forever, without taking any action to ensure this happens, then we have already lost, haven't we?