Slashdot Mirror
Ian Clarke, Ernie Miller On Free Speech, Privacy
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."
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.
As to why, the truth - and I say this is as an American - is because we're fat (statistically speaking we are becoming grossly obese), greedy (statistically the hardest workers the world while in a nation with one of the highest incomes - yes I know about Luxembourg) swine (check out our popular media sometime) so drunk on our own stupid swill (see that popular media again, or how about Britney's absolutely perfect perfect quote below her picture) that we no longer care (elections typically drawing in 30-40% of voters).
It isn't as if any other humans would do any better though, so foreigners shouldn't think themselves superior - we're all born with pleasure centers, and predictable outcomes to them, and this results in addictions, etc. It isn't our fault as Americans because humans are penultimately mere deterministic ongoing molecular processes, or parsed down to English - we're all just ongoing (complicated) chemical reactions. Chemical reactions don't have faults - they just execute like computer programs. Yes Mr. Smarty-pants in the front row, I just denied the existence of free will.
So 'how could we allow this to happen'? I'll describe the process, if you wish. The corporations, macro-human entities that exist only to acquire resource regardless of all other matters, catered to us in exchange for resource. They catered so well we stopped caring. Now that we've stopped caring the corporations have learned that they can modify the rules of the environment they exist in - that is, change the government in their favor - and they have so that the environment now allows them to gather yet MORE resource free of traditional limitations.
As for rights being stripped away (the Patriot Act - and yes, they actively are being stripped away, ask a certain former employee of Intel or webmaster of raisethefist.org) the framers of the Constitution, being good legal engineers, built a defense in depth to prevent the system from completely running out of control. Over a long enough timeline, the probability of just about anything approaches one, including multiple simultaneous failures. 9/11 was but one breach. Another was an attorney general (who lost his senatorial race to a corpse, technically) with little understanding (or at least concern if he did understand) of the Constitution. Another element was a conservative administration headed by the members of the thinktank Project for a New American Century, who back in the Clinton administration openly advocated the US taking down Iraq to use as a base from which to topple many various Middle Eastern nations in succession like so many dominos. That there would be collusion between their oil-centric corporate interests here, as well, is simply gravy on top for them. You might have heard of some of the members of PNAC - they include Dick Cheney our Vice President, Donald Rumsfeld our Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz his righthand man, formerly Richard Perle, his much nastier lefthand man, Steve Forbes, Jeb Bush - the list goes on. I encourage you to at least read that last link so as to ascertain that I am certainly not a conspiracy theorist of any kind.
There's your why and how. Shouldn't this be changed? Yes if you choose to believe in the sanctity of individuals, which as a strict Cartesian I do. Will it? I doubt it. I encourage you to vote for Howard Dean, as he's a step in the not-wrong direction regardless of your view of things like gun-control/abortion/gay marriage/healthcare.
Any other questions? It's 3AM here in the west coast of the US and I'd like to go to bed.
This is wrong. The Bush administration is not comprised of conservatives.
They are statist reactionaries. They want a very powerful state, a huge state in fact, a violent state and one that enforces obedience on the population. There is a kind of quasi-fascist spirit there, in the background, and they have been attempting to undermine civil rights in many ways. That's one of their long term objectives, and they have to do it quickly because in the US there is a strong tradition of protection of civil rights. But the kind of surveillance you are talking about of libraries and so on is a step towards it. They have also claimed the right to place a person - even an American citizen - in detention without charge, without access to lawyers and family, and to hold them there indefinitely, and that in fact has been upheld by the Courts, which is pretty shocking. But they have a new proposal, sometimes called Patriot II, a 80-page document inside the Justice department. Someone leaked it and it reached the press. There have been some outraged articles by law professors about it. This is only planned so far, but they would like to implement as secretly as they can. These plans would permit the Attorney General to remove citizenship from any individual whom the attorney general believes is acting in a way harmful to the US interests. I mean, this is going beyond anything contemplated in any democratic society. One law professor at New York University has written that this administration evidently will attempt to take away any civil rights that it can from citizens and I think its basically correct. That fits in with their reactionary statist policies which have a domestic aspect in the economy and social life but also in political life.