Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Ian Clarke, Ernie Miller On Free Speech, Privacy

Posted by simoniker on from the itchy-and-scratchy-of-yro dept.

mpawlo writes "I am still pursuing my new pastime, interviewing interesting Internet policy individuals for Greplaw. Fresh catches include Freenet creator Ian Clarke on his decision to leave the USA, free speech and Freenet and former Lawmeme editor-in-chief Ernest Miller on DRM and privacy, copyright and the First Amendment... and, of course, why blogs matter. Maybe this will provide some food for thought."

11 of 391 comments (clear)

  1. Rights? What are they? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    See, I'm an amerikan (a conservative, not a neocon bush-head asshole...there's a BIG difference) and I'm trying to grasp the concept of this whole "rights" thing. What rights we have left are being stripped away for the appearance of security, and the mindless sheep of amerika (bleat) are too stupid to realize it.

    Moving to Canada won't fix the problem, as anything amerika gets involved in, canada will likely get screwed up in just via proximity.

    The more I see the more I realize the end time is coming. Don't bother planning for the future folks, you don't have one.

  2. Re:Ian Clarke is a f*cking idiot by mpawlo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You are confusing Mr Ian Clarke with Mr John Gilmore. I guess you need to read Greplaw more frequently .-)

    The Gilmore flight stunt has been extensively debated. Mr John Gilmore and Professor Lawrence Lessig have issued replies to the debate on Mr John Gilmore's flight-stunt. Mr John Gilmore was rejected from a flight because Mr Gilmore wore a badge saying "Suspected Terrorist". Should the flight captain have ejected Mr Gilmore because of the button or not? The discussion has been heated, not least since Mr Seth Finkelstein suggested that Mr Gilmore's behaviour was 'a millionaire's version of trolling.' Mr Gilmore counter-trolled Mr Finkelstein and got an endorsement from Professor Lessig.

    Read Mr John Gilmore's reply.

    Read Professor Lessig's comment.

    Read Mr Seth Finkelstein's comment on the comments above.

    Best regards,

    Mikael

    --
    Pawlo.com
  3. A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    What do you think of the way your administration is handling things the last 10 years? Don't you just hate the fact that big companies seem to have alot more influence on politics than the average Joe has?

    Shouldn't this be changed as soon as possible to protect the rights you as a citizen should have?

    Or put in another way: what is the reason the US has taken this 'corporate control' road? How did this happen? Why did you all allow this to happen?

    1. Re:A question for all US people by mc6809e · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What do you think of the way your administration is handling things the last 10 years? Don't you just hate the fact that big companies seem to have alot more influence on politics than the average Joe has?

      Shouldn't this be changed as soon as possible to protect the rights you as a citizen should have?

      Or put in another way: what is the reason the US has taken this 'corporate control' road? How did this happen? Why did you all allow this to happen?

      Why the obsession with corporate power? Just how much influence do they have on politics?

      Do they set the speed limits?
      Are they the reason I can't buy liquor on Sunday?
      Jeb Bush is the Governor of Florida. What corporation paid all those voters to vote for him? Jesus, Inc.?
      Are they responsible for the Patriot Act?

      There's a point where anti-corporatism starts to sound like an ideology or religion. Where's the moderation? There's plenty of blame to go around.

      I'd also like to point out that corporations for all their faults seem to be very effective ways of ordering people and resources for maximum effeciency. Most of the stuff you have in your house owes its existance to some corporation. Without corporations, life would be much harder.

    2. Re:A question for all US people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Are they responsible for the Patriot Act?
      Depends on how you think this whole terrorism shit started in the first place:
      - Evil people in the middle east or
      - Evil corporate people in the West that want to ensure their money (oil) is safe.

      I do not give an opinion here, but nobody can convince me of either option. They're both quite possible.

      There's a point where anti-corporatism starts to sound like an ideology or religion.
      That's an interesting point you're making there because I see it the other way arround. When I look at Amerika, I see corporate control becoming some sort of must-have in the American ideology: the Amerikan dream. Which really involves having alot of money iso happyness in life.
      It's like: "hey, those cooperations want to make more money, that's their good right, so the influence is also their right."
      But that's diproportianal since companies have a lot more power on politics (through money, lobbying and legal knowledge) but do not think about the good of the people of the US. Yes, some innovations are good, but will they have your well being as a high topic on their agenda? Nope, only money (as it should be, I'm not saying that that's a bad thing itself).

      So I do not think corporations should have that much influence.

      Take for instance the war in Iraq. What do you think of the fact that people like Bush(sr) and James Baker III (both VERY influencial in current politics) have strong ties with companies like the Carlyle Group? Do you see the link? Can you guarantee mee that the decision for war was not partly made with influence of the Carlyle Group?
      This might be just a conspiracy theory, I'm not claiming that the link between the war and the Group is actually there. I'm just saying that such strong political/corporate ties should not exist to ensure independed decisions by politicians.

      maximum effeciency
      Yep, that's a positive thing, but it's not the only thing we're after in life. Sometimes effeciency should be diregarded because things need alot of care.

      So my point is: corporations are not evil *period*, but they should not have that much influence since they do not represent the will nor the well being of the people.

  4. This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 5, Interesting

    but I've got to ask:

    Does it bother you that the main use of Freenet at the moment seems to be pr0n of a less-than-mature nature?

    I can understand the argument that child porn is something we'll just need to accept if we want to allow true freedom of speech, but last time I checked freenet, just about the only content I could find was child porn, so it seems either pedophiles are more tech-savvy than average, or the need for anonymity for other "forbidden" content is not so great yet.

    Of course, The RIAA's actions might change that quickly.

    --
    All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
    1. Re:This is not a /. Interview... by SMOC · · Score: 1, Interesting

      child porn has NOTHING to do with freedom of speech. it is a crime to produce it in the first place, hence stopping its distribution is not a violation of freedom of speech.

      That is not what I meant. I agree it should be illegal, it's just that with Freenet, it's next to impossible to track down, so you'll have to accept it popping up there.

      The only alternative is to forbid anonymity entirely, because it's not possible to be only anonymous when your NOT distributing child porn.

      --
      All errors in this comment are mine. Corrections are considered a derivative work, and punishable under copyright law.
  5. Godwin's Law by hey · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Godwin's Law is mentioned. So I looked it up:
    Godwin's Law prov. [Usenet] "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.
    Pretty funny. hey's law is that everybody wants to have their own law.
  6. Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Surak · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No, not for a second. I have a deep conviction that the freedom to communicate is absolutely essential to human progress. This conviction was forged during my youth growing up during quite turbulent times in Ireland, during which I learned that terrorism is not a product of freedom, it is a symptom of the absence of freedom and understanding. Censorship is the enemy of freedom and understanding, and therefore the friend of terrorism.

    Exactly right, man. And it is that absence of freedom that will cause *further* terrorism in the U.S.

    Anyone think this is the *real* reason Ian Clarke is leaving? He's worried about possible terrorist actions taken against the U.S. government by its own citizens?

    --
    My journal has hot /. gossip.
    1. Re:Real reason Ian Clarke is leaving by Bertie · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Knowing Ian (and I do, or at least I used to), he's missing being able to get a decent pint more than anything...

      It's funny, you know, reading Slashdot and seeing someone you know's name up in lights. Ian's something of a geek icon these days, yet to me he's just one of the few decent guys in the AI class, who lived across the road in fourth year, and had a slightly questionable taste in leather jackets.

      I can remember bumping into him just outside the shop at Potterrow during exam time in third year, and he was telling me about the thing he was doing for his "large practical", which made up a fair chunk of the course. At the time he seemed more interested in cutting down on the amount of unnecessary transfers of data from servers a long way away by making it available locally, rather than the anonymity aspect of things. Anyway, out of this grew Freenet, and here we are. It's a hell of a sight more than any of the rest of us achieved with our work, I'm sure...

      Edinburgh's a much nicer place to spend your days anyway. That wind in the winter would cut you in two, mind.

  7. Re:right-wing whiner strategy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Most groups have extreme members. I am pro-life. This means I don't defend the actions of those who murder abortion doctors. That's wrong as well. I also oppose euthanasia of people. And even the death penalty, when administered inconsistently like in America, is not acceptable. I'm pro-life across the board. There is no hypocrisy here. Never judge a group based on its most extreme members. I guarantee you, a huge majority (probably over 99.9%) of pro-life people would never think of committing such a crime.

    You may have the right to control your own body, but not when it's at the expense of another life. That's not women's rights, that's murder.

    I also like how liberals like to accuse conservatives of refusing to accept science. The more science learns about the fetus, the more it agrees with the pro-life view that it's a human from the moment of conception on. Look up the latest research on pre-natal development. The very thing liberals accuse the conservatives of is key to their being able to justify abortion.

    Oh, and the profanity doesn't make you look mature, either. It just makes you look like an immature extremist. Next time, try calmly and clearly stating your views and they might be taken more seriously.