Slashdot Mirror
Misleading Web Page Cons Conference Organizers
An unnamed correspondent writes: "The New York Times has a story about how an anti-trade group conned a trade conference into
inviting a talk from a member
using a page at www.gatt.org that looks like a legitimate WTO/GATT page with a bogus e-mail link to the
WTO's director-general. It seems like domain hijacking to me, but the real WTO 'respects the nature of the Internet' and is playing it cool. Funny for those amused by pranks and hoaxes." (Yes, it's the New York Times, so no-login URLs will doubtless soon appear.) I must admit, this made me think about from which misleading domain names it would be coolest to receive such misdirected mail.
Congratulations! You got the First Post.
In an effort to help the Open Source trolling community, the Slashdot First Post Compensation Commission is prepared to offer you one US dollar.
All you have to do to claim your payment is e-mail us at sfpcc@hotmail.com with the address to which you would like your compensation sent.
This offer only valid for US mailing addresses. Please allow 2 - 3 weeks for delivery. Please include in your e-mail a link to your first post.
Slashdot First Post Compensation Commission
If you really read the page, a lot of it is satirical and someone should've realized something was up. e.g.:
"These electorates, always reluctant to adopt the rational thinking of the free trade extremists (who have, after all, proved their worth by being the world's wealthiest people, or hired by same), are the only real obstacle to the kind of progress and development that is considered most likely to benefit all."
"Does free trade mean a high growth rate?
There is no evidence at all that it does. There is evidence it does not..."
"Does free trade mean a better standard of living?
During the last thirty years, the U.S. market has been "opened" and deregulated more, and more quickly, than that of any other developed country. But the average hours worked per year in the U.S. increased greatly between 1980 and 1997, while in every other developed country but one, they declined. Compared with 1973, Americans must now work six weeks more per year to achieve the same standard of living--and not surprisingly, Americans are increasingly dissatisfied with their lives...."
"The WTO's purpose is to broaden and enforce global free trade. Global free trade already gives multinational corporations vast powers to enforce their will against democratic governments. Expanding these corporate powers--as the WTO intends to do in Seattle and beyond--will further cripple governments and make them even less able to protect their citizens from the ravages of those entities whose only aim is to grow richer and richer and richer."
etc.
BTW, if you haven't already, read the story at the NYT, it's really hilarious.
Congrats to the WTO on having a sense of humor. Is there anyone that doesn't love this stuff?
P.S. "bunny burgers"
"Not an actor, but he plays one on TV."
That was excellent. Really. I'm surprised they managed to carry it that far, but in terms of practical jokes, sending a bogus WTO representitve to a conference UNDETECTED who raises a few eyebrows (unsurprisingly) but still gets away with it has to rank up there with the best.
--
Pretend that something especially witty is here. Thanks.
I've got mixed feelings, to tell the truth. On the one hand, I deeply dislike organizations that try and bully all and sundry (remember eToys?) about domain names. And as an added bonus, the message of their victims (if any) is usually cool. Nobody LIKES to see someone making jokes about corporate stupidity get shut down by the corporation in question--you lose access to the jokes.
In this case, it seems the WTO is being cool about this website--which they can be congratulated on. This is, after all, the way it's supposed to work. On the other hand that website is getting close to crossing the very fine line between satire (one of the highest forms of humour) and libel, which is just lying about people.
I looked through the site, and these people aren't saying anything informed or intelligent...or even funny. There are legitament criticizism of many of the things the WTO has done...but these people don't seem to know what they are. There are funny jokes that could be made...but these people aren't making them. The WTO has done stupid things...but these people don't know what they are. There are flaws in some bits of the economic reasoning you could drive a truck through...but these people have no clue. The entire point of the site seems to be to confuse and mislead--NOT to entertain or convince.
As it happens, I agree with much (not all) of WTO policy. But I ALSO agree with the right for people to disagree. These people may or may not have the right message--that doesn't matter. But they aren't using the right method. I have a right to tell you what I think of Bush--I don't have the right to tell you I *AM* Bush.
How come it's always the cool sites that get slapped down?
Actually, the URL given (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/07/weekinreview/07 WORD.html)
is already a no-login URL, if your /etc/hosts or DNS nameserver is set up "correctly". Just be sure you have the following line somewhere in your /etc/hosts:
208.48.26.217 www.nytimes.com
...molotov cocktails, or destroying the obligatory local McDonalds resteraunt franchiser's property. This was at least only intellectual violence and vandalism, somewhat of a step up compared to the average vitriolic thuggishness embraced by the modern anti-capitalists, anarchists, and the like.
Still, the later continuation of the prank with the, ahem, joke about the 'pieing' of the man turning out to have been a method for the delivery of botulism toxin... Biological warfare; of course, they are only joking, right? Still, as real-world pies in the face have become a popular mechanism for delivery of some subversive shaming dissent [or, to be more honest, of symbolic violence. Of demonstrating to someone that you can get to them physically, and that your ilk might not always be only packing a meringue to assult them with].
---
man sig
---
---
the pen is mightier then the sword. the sword is mightier then the court. the court is mightier then the pen.
You might dislike Gatt people's economic/social positions but others groups would have prosecuted the jokers for much less.
At least they were fair enough to take it as what it was : a joke.
--
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Wrong.
The four criteria which can construe "bad faith" are:
For the first one, they have shown no sign of wanting to sell the domain name, so that doesn't apply. For the second, AFAIK they haven't "engaged in a pattern of such conduct", so that doesn't apply.
For the third, the WTO isn't a competitor of theirs, so that doesn't apply. And the last doesn't apply because they aren't trying to attrack users for commercial gain.
So even though the domain was obviously registered in bad faith, none of the "bad faith" requirements are met, and the domain shouldn't be transferred according to the UDRP.
Of course, that hasn't stopped WIPO in the past...
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I believe that WIPO should change its name to something more descriptive and fitting. For those that missed this:
WIPO PRESS RELEASE - September 11, 2000
The World Intellectual Property Organisation, to improve commercial profitability, are to have a name and Internet site change. Formally WIPO, is now to be known as SWIPO. We can be found at our new site SWIPO.ORG.
We have the full backing of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO.GOV) and Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN.ORG).
We are the first and most excellent of the arbitration services for ICANNs big business friendly process - the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Do not think just because we are part of the United Nations (UN.ORG) that we are even-handed, therefore may rule against you. Being financed by big business - we know where our loyalties lie.
We are to shortly start an advertising campaign to inform of this name change, aimed at the corporate and celebrity world. We will guarantee to them with absolute certainty, that they we will get any domain name they covet - whoever already owns it. Unless owners have more money and power, of course. We can do this because of rationalisation, ridding ourselves of honest panellists in readiness for our Initial Public Offering in January 2001.
Do not use any of the other arbitration services - eResolution etc, even in the past we were the most successful in getting the name you want. We made the rules - we know all the tricks. We are the most powerful, growing daily, and can take whatever you want. Tell us the name; we will do the rest. Example: Paramount approached us a short while back, saying they would quite like CREW.com for their camera crews to use. We thought about it and came up with a winning excuse - Star Trek has the most famous crews of any ship on the planet (or off). We told them to hang on until after a smaller case for the name had gone through. It would be silly to turn down jCREW money.
We will push aside ALL competition, using the quote from Francis Gurry, Advertising and Publicity Executive, "Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best".
We deny all of the libellous slurs being put by our critics. WIPO.org.uk say we do not look after the interests of all trademark holders. It is a malicious lie; we follow a strict set procedure to make sure we do so:
1. We give domain to UDRP appellant, after their cheque clears.
2. We contact each trademark in turn, no matter how obscure or tenuous the link.
3. We offer them arbitration to take domain away from the new owner.
Case in point: After winning them JethroTull.com, told Tull about JT.com, which we just usurped for Japan Tobacco. Tull decided it was wanted; their money is as good as anyone's. We came up a winning argument; they are 'JT' to friends, all families and fans.
Seen a domain name you would like to hijack? Order it now from our site at SWIPO.ORG.
"Domain Name Hijacking - Forget the Rest - We Swipe Best"
Semblance of any the above to reality is purely a joke, as is the true state of affairs. All TM acknowledged. This has been written in the spirit of 'free speech' (you may have heard the expression). SWIPO is pointed to WIPO. If you want more of the truth (you be the judge), visit my site wipo.org.uk. You can see the answer to trademark problems there.
Wipo.org.uk and swipo.org have no connection with, and wishes to be totally disassociated from, the World Intellectual Property Organization. The above is considered and informed opinion.
That's simple. The point of the WTO is a mechanism for "bargaining" down trade barriers--and enforcing the bargains, once struck. The US says that it will drop tarrifs on wine, if the EU drops tarrifs on beef, let's say. The US could unilterally drop tarrifs on wine and be done with it--but the WTO exists to allow the US to trade that drop for another one.
That's the main reason why countries want to be in--particularly developing countries, which are desperate for lower tarrifs on agricultural products and textiles. They know that the EU would never let their hugely pampered farmers suffer without good cause--the WTO is therefore their best best: If they're lucky, they can trade something unimportant to them (removal of restrictions on foreign ownership of telecoms, let's say) for something vastly beneficial--lowered tarrifs on those goods they export. It's not easy, even with the WTO--witness the current breakdowns (which have little to do with protests--rather, the developing countries are sore that the 1st world hasn't done what it promised last round yet). That's the choice a lot of countries are having to make--stay out in the cold, with no chance of ever having enough clout to get any important barriers lowered...or enter, and have a much better chance.
Finally, the WTO is there to enforce agreements, once struck (but don't forget it was YOUR politicians that first have to agree). Once the US has agreed not to ban tuna imports, it can't then turn around and ban them, however popular or worthy the cause now is. The fault is that of shortsighted politicians, not the WTO.
As an example, China has been working very hard to get into the WTO--despite the fact that it entails a massive shake up of their entire economy, and a real chance of political instability. Why are they so keen? Easy--it's the best, maybe even the only way, they can manage to remove the massive barriers that have been set in front of them--and China needs them removed very badly. China has a massivly growing population--either the economy at least matches it, or a nuclear power with the worlds largest standing army, several territorial disputes with other nuclear powers, and several rebellious provinces (one of which is ALSO nuclear armed, probably)...goes BOOM! No, I think we need to keep those peasents in poverty myself--fatter subsidies for the steel workers! What's that you say? Let them eat cake? I couldn't agree more!
Yeah right... You'll notice that the protestors wearn't Chinese. For that matter, the current head of the WTO is from NZ, population 3.5 million, heavily dependent on agricultural products, mostly wool, cheese, butter, and so forth. Not a particularly important country--which is why NZ is such a strong proponent of free trade. We don't ask for an advantage, we just want a fair go...which is why all my friends are as puzzled as I am about the protesters in Seattle. Fair trade? That's what the WTO is DOING.
I think I have done the most spoofs for one site to date with everything ranging from Microsoft, FreeBSD, SourceForge, ABCNews, Redhat, Firestone, Napster, Slashdot, and a few more, I think people should exercise a bit of common sense before following the information contained on spoofed pages.
/.'er and will often fall for these jokes and misguided info filled pages (Lord knows agencies like the FBI play off some judges who are non technically adept in an effort to get warrant issued.) I've had people who thought these were hacks I had done, I had those complain to me about their (spoofed sites) judgement to use offensive things, so its clear that some people are dolts.
Now anyone can surely see any of the pages are made in good or bad taste depending on judgement, and many can say "They should have known better", should anyone have been technologically challenged to take anything serious, but people have to take into consideration that not everyone is a tech savvy
Should someone have intent to make money, misguide (for financial gain), or other ill motive outside of just typical fun poking of a site using a spoof then there should be some form restitution they should have the pay and the content be removed.
Coming soon, NSA Spoof
Home sweet home
360 degrees of Karma
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Let me be the first to post it then:the WTO is not sueing these people because they could not possibly face any more bad publicity
The WTO is simply a cartel beyond the biggest of cartels that you can think of; they unite the biggest corporations (countries) to come to terms about resources and prices. Simple as that. Nothing free market about it. (As is most of capitalism is most western countries; they all start resembling communism in an eerie way by now).
Be afraid.Those would be the same organizations who employ millions of people, fund the machinery of state through corporate/employment/windfall taxes, and that your pension fund is invested in?
Things are not as black and white as the "anti capitalist" movement would have you believe. What do you suppose the world was like prior to globalization? The garden of Eden?!
NYT's online group just laid off 17 people. I wonder if it's because they aren't getting the revenues generated by selling the marketing info from those annoying registrations?
I doubt they'll change anytime soon, though now they're the only "registration required" login that c|net, Wired and Slashdot regularly link.
[
Hey, your not the standard foaming demagogue! I'm impressed. Now:
:-) Indeed, why have corporation tax at all? A corporation is nothing more than shareholders and employees, and you can tax them however you choose.
Point 1: Your right.
Point 2: Perceived, yes. In actual fact, it's kind of cool if an inept bureacrat decides to subsidize the production of my new stick of RAM...or the steel that goes into my new car. Of course, those resources probably would have gone somewhere more important (education, maybe), but I can't help that. *IF* we want to treat this as a "race between countries", then subsidizing exports is an own goal. If we want to look at total human suffering, it's pretty bad, but not buying it isn't the way to fix it.
Point 3: Not strictly speaking relavent. We are discussing ways and organizations to enforce and defend intellectual property rights. Perhaps it's more important to discuss what those rights are (or should be), but that's a very seperate issue.
Point 4: Yes, but... Yeah it does cause a lot of ill-will that the big and powerful set the rules to help themselves. The developing countries are not happy that the big countries try and force reforms on them, while refusing to swallow that medicine themselves. The protests in Seattle suited a lot of powerful people in suits. It didn't suit the WTO...or the developing countries, although they were fed up before then. No matter how you look at it, it's not good. If the protesters had the best interests of the powerless at heart (and knew what they were doing) they'd be arguing for complete and unilateral removal of all tarrifs, quotas, and subsidies. The US corporations would never agree of course--which tells you all you need to know about both the effects and the possability of it happening.
Point 5: Change hurts, yeah.
As for the benefits being nebulous, and the costs concrete... Agreed. But that's not REALLY the question. The question is, are the benefits bigger than the costs? And the answer is yes, by a great deal. A lot of economists have spent a lot of time answering this question (and others like it), and you can take it or not, as your opinion of economists and economics dictate. The fact is, lowering barriers to imports helps a country (and by more than it helps the trading partners, regardless of balance of trade). Similarly, export subsidies are bad for a country, although they do help the trading partners. Of course, in a democracy, more than a few politicians have found the political risks to be the inverse of the economic benefits...but that's a seperate issue.
You lose it when you come to taxation though. Don't forget where the benefits are--not with the corporation. The megacorps, by and large, LOSE from globalization. Subsidies in whatever form (and tariffs are a common form) act as a redistribution of wealth from the consumers (that is, the Average Joe) to the corporations (why do you think it's always the industrialists that lobby for protection? The steel mills that ask for protection from "dumping"?). Remove those barriers, and it's the consumers that benefit--and they can't dodge taxes by moving offshore without losing the benefits. Yeah, it's DAMN tough to see it--especially when those 100 factory workers are picketing and the 100,000 benefitting from the slightly cheaper goods (and the 100 million benefitting from the slightly springier economy) aren't... The corporations are a sideshow--not least because while they can indeed move, the shareholders can't.
"Globalization" in this context usually means the removal of barriers to trade, such as tarriffs. These barriers are artificial anyway, and were not usually erected for economic reasons. For example, a politician might impose a tax in imported steel in order to safeguard steelworkers in his/her own country. Sometimes this might be because the country wants to have steel production capability because it needs to be able to manufacture its own weapons, sometimes it's because the politician wants to votes of the steelworkers and their communities.
Doing so, however, screws the consumer by making them pay higher prices, since without competition the monopolies and unions can dictate their own terms, it screws the taxpayer, who need to pay for the subsidies, it screws trading partners (other countries) who can't sell their products (which may be cheaper or better) and ultimately it screws the beneficiaries, who find that as soon as the barriers are no longer effective, they've become too inefficient to survive.
I must add that this group and the other protestors are not anti trade per say but against trade deciions being made by a small group of men that aren't elected, behind closed doors.
I've seen the posters and the demonstrators. They're against capitalism, industry, trade, the monetary system, the whole works. They seem to think that if they just do away with the economy altogether, they'll be free to party their whole lives. Where on earth do they suppose their dole comes from?
Now, personally, I'm happy for anyone to live any lifestyle they want to. I'm just not happy about paying for it.
From the description of one of the holdings (VRWR):
Not hijacking. Clever prank.http://www.theyesmen.org/wto/ Where they successfully sent an individual as someone impersonating a speaker from the WTO, staged a pie in the face incident and when his horrible speech didn't raise enough of a reaction from the audience they staged his death.
Bleh!
No matter what your politics are, ya gotta admit that's a pretty cool Hack. They carried it pretty far. I wonder what the guy was thinking when he gave the speech? That must have been fun :-)
Vidi, Vici, Veni
Large corporations pay little, if any tax. For example, Cisco and Microsoft pay no federal income taxes. Cities and states fall all over themselves to give tax breaks to megacorps in the name of attracting jobs - instead of more sensibly and justly helping smaller locally-owned businesses to grow.
(And I try to make my own investing socially responsible, as best I can.)
And your point does not justify the way megacorps buy legislators like baseball cards.
It's not just about globalization - the removal of environmental, health, and justice considerations from international trade policy is a symptom of too much corporate power, not a cause.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | http://www.infamous.net/
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood