Slashdot Mirror
The Empires Strike Back
Alien54 writes "Back when the Internet was young - oh, say, eight years ago - there was a school of thought that held that cyberspace was its own sovereign nation. For one thing, 'The Net perceives censorship as damage, and routes around it.' What government could control what was said on the Net? [...] Maybe it's time to change that into, 'Governments perceive the Internet as damage, and gang up on it.' So says Net War columnist Wendy Grossman in an article discussing the recent raids on Indymedia. She makes an interesting case."
How the heck did that happen? But on an on-topic vein, cyberspace is the only place that is even remotely truly free anymore. Governments, who exist to 'secure our freedom' seem to want to limit the freedoms that they don't directly control. Someone should bust them up for forming monopolies.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
She should try reading Neuromaner, by Gibson, which was amazingly published in 1984.
Just why were the Indymedia hard disks seized?
!sig
but I think it is a little premature to suggest that the internet is doomed because of the Indymedia fiasco.
until the goverment says why they raided the place everyone is really just crying wolf. They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools. We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet. Now if they start raiding other media outlets give me a call but 1 case where we don't know any facts isn't a reason to panic.
While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.
That's 1996. Maybe the *web* was young at that point, but a whole lot of us had been using the net for more than 10 years at that point.
Hell, even AOL had been plaguing the net for years at that point.
"It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
all we have to do is Wait for The Return of the Jedi and all will be good again.
corporate legal threats
copyrights
drm
government filters censors
etc
Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
Wan't to access a London, have to submit to their laws.
Unacceptable. Your patience and reason are not tolerated in the sovereign nation of Internet. Go straight to the gulag for reeducation.
four words:
amatuer orbital server farms.
cut down on those pesky armed intrusions and silly warrant nonsense.
Mr Rutan, could you loft my rack? thanks.
the government is your enemy - no exceptions. This was the reason the US was set up with the sole intention to limit the Governments power. They will always seek more power and control no matter how good their intentions. If we all start to realize that good government is always less government, the better the world will be.
Stay tuned for new sig...
Yes, but you can also spoof IP addresses and make it seem as if you came from someplace different than where you are.
We don't often think of governments cooperating, but the one thing that is a bigger threat than another government is freedom. Anyone's freedom, anywhere, is a threat to the idea that nobody can be free anywhere.
You bet they're going to gang up on the internet. The more effectively the internet routes around damage, the more effectively they'll damage it, for their own survival.
See what I've been reading.
I think the internet is going the way of free speech. You'll need a little guide to see if you are "allowed" to say something or do something. That's not to say it won't be back in all it's glory but right now who owns the hardware and fibres that run the 'net?
Of the authorities in situations like these that gets stories like these printed. It goes something like this:
* We owe you no explanation
* Nobody holds us accountable
* You have no defense
* You are automatically assumed wrong
* We admit no wrongdoing
* We are above right and wrong
* Whatever we want to do is automatically justified
* We don't owe you an apology
* Go ahead and try to sue, we'll just do it again to teach you a lesson
* People with power are on our side
For every annoying gentoo user, are three even more annoying anti-gentoo crybabies. Take Yosh from #Gimp for example.
The last thing that media/corporations/government want is an active medium that they don't have strict control over. Conspiracies aside, these sorts of things just aren't conducive to the way they do business.
-The media sells your eyes for advertising revenue.
-The Government ensures that the "public sphere" is in tune with what they want it to focus on.
-The corporations insist that their products and actions pose no danger to your environment and well-being.
As a result, having a medium that they can only try to control is unacceptable! Passive media ensures that their goals are achieved, while society just sits back and pushes the channel button.
We're free until their teamwork pays off to do something sinful to the internet.
Stop the Internet!
I'm not here. This isn't happening.
"Allies of the willing" cooperating in stings to shut us up.
FEC looking to quiet "dicent" on the internet regarding campaigning.
Indymedia attacked for pictures of police shooting innocent protestors..
The internet is a medium of hypocracy as much as a medium of truth - states don't deserve the right to control, police or determine what i read. If i can buy the BS in books, i can certainly read it on the net.
Is it past time to use digital certificates, ssl, keyfobs and encryption to protect ourselves from "evil doers?" (aka governments with something to hide..)
Tin foil hat? dunno.. all i know is media is so left or right and when independants are being busted for telling the truth it disgusts me.
Since the internet has become 'privatized' it seems that there is not only cooperation between governments, but corporations as well. It seems that corporations have no consideration of freedoms and will sell out to the highest bidder. Witness the Great Firewall of China and the localized search features. It is scary because such governmental and corporate partnership indicates a possible rise of Global Fascism.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
Cyberspace will never be its own sovereign nation as long as the endpoints are rooted in the physical world.
true. is this the case with IPv6? as well?
In the present matter regarding Indymedia, Rackspace Managed Hosting, a U.S. based company with offices in London, is acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering. Rackspace responded to a Commissioner's subpoena, duly issued under Title 28, United States Code, Section 1782 in an investigation that did not arise in the United States. Rackspace is acting as a good corporate citizen and is cooperating with international law enforcement authorities. The court prohibits Rackspace from commenting further on this matter.
What's an MLAT?
Criminal Cases Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties: Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Treaties (MLATs) are relatively recent development. They seek to improve the effectiveness of judicial assistance and to regularize and facilitate its procedures. Each country designates a central authority, generally the two Justice Departments, for direct communication. The treaties include the power to summon witnesses, to compel the production of documents and other real evidence, to issue search warrants, and to serve process. Generally, the remedies offered by the treaties are only available to the prosecutors. The defense must usually proceed with the methods of obtaining evidence in criminal matters under the laws of the host country which usually involve letters rogatory.
MLAT Treaties in Force:
I. The United States has nineteen Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties (MLAT) currently in force: Argentina, Bahamas, Canada, Hungary, Italy, Jamaica, Korea, Mexico, Morocco, Netherlands, Panama, Philippines, Spain, Switzerland, Thailand, Turkey, United Kingdom (Cayman Islands), United Kingdom, Uruguay.
This is a test. This is a test of the emergency sig system. This has been only a test.
It talks a bit about how there are colonies on the moon and mars where people aren't afraid to read books other people own, because they're so far away and the government can't punish them.
10 karma points to s/he who finds this story. It's perfect for this topic.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Q: What government could control what was said on the Net?
A: China.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
There is no such thing as censorship on the Net. Despite everything Noam ______ may write about it. In fact, when asked about it, John ______ at the department of ______ even goes so far as questioning the sanity of whomever that _____ would _____. It's so _____ that it's _____.
Sincerely,
______
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"Governments percieve free speech as dangerous". Still not quite it...
"Governments perceive free speech as dangerous to themselves". Yeah, I think that says it.
While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy against one particular instance, on the whole it seems to be very true and concerning.
"slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you say beacuse of something something else WILL happen. It is not a fallacy if you say because of something something else COULD (or is very likely even) happen. I find that people that scream about the "slippery slope fallacy" are usually doing so because they have no other arguments to back up their position.
Two new features in IPv6 are encryption and authentication, so that will definitely cut down on the amount of spoofing. But, when it comes down to it, there will always be a way to make it seem as you're somewhere you're not.
until the goverment says why they raided the place everyone is really just crying wolf.
... abuse of power is abuse of power, regardless.
Um, no. Having the government abscond with people's property without cause or justification, and stonewalling as to why, does not imply no cause for concern, nor is anyone "crying wolf" when they announce to the world that the government has seized their property and silenced their voices without announcing why and without proper due process (which, in case you were sleeping through twelve years of civics classes, includes being told what one is accused of doing wrong).
They might have had a perfectly legit reason or they may have been poltical tools
With no notification to the accused of what they are accused of, it is abuse of power and in violation of acceptable norms in every western liberal democracy. It is irrelevant as to whether the motive was political, legal, or personal
We don't know yet and may not know for a long time but so far I'm not inclined to start screaming about censorship just yet.
Not surprising. You represent the school of thought that is primarilly responsible for these sorts of actions, and the erosion of our fundamental rights they imply.
But nevermind, I'm sure you'll scream loudly about how burying your head in the sand is "realistic" and "sophisticated," while those of us who point to such obvious abuses as these are dismissed as the "tin foil hat" crowd. This has happened numerous times in history, and is happening again, proving once more that those who ignore history are indeed doommed to repeat it. Unless, of course, IHBT.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Or even more amazingly read True Names, by Vernor Vinge, which was published a few years earlier.
Whether you think the IndyMedia incident was a harbinger of things to come or not, bad things could easily, and probably are, on the horizon. This is why I support the movements true cypherpunks everywhere. The ability to be as anonymous as possible is arguably important these days, but I'm sure one day, probably more sooner than later, it will become an issue-I'd rather prepare for it now. You don't plan to succeed, you succeed to plan, better safe then sorry, etc, pick your cliche', but keep your eyes open and your movements hidden.
I know nothing
To expand on this, people who seek positions of real power (meaning the "right" to initiate force as a means to an end, i.e. government) are those who wish to control others through coercion, not those who wish only to mind their own business and live their lives in peace.
Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government? (I know there are a select few who actually work to reduce the powers of government, but those are the very rare exceptions.)
That is the problem with Neil Stephenson's "data haven" by the way: what happens when the US sends it cable-cutting submarine over and cuts all the lines leading into that island?
Anyone who didn't see this coming is naive at best.
sPh
loft my rack?
Ummm...I didn't know indymedia did porn...
Five years ago, you could have been pooh-poohed (yeah, I read that phrase on slashdot this week) for suggesting that people could be made to use cyber-passports / visas to access content on the internet. I doubt too many pooh-poohers will be in evidence in these wonderful times when the legislative intent in (surprise, surprise) the worlds largest and plural democratic nations is to criminalize every little infraction.
And its not surprising that governments view the internet (and the web of information it underlies) as a threat - governance presupposes control - the whole superstructure oof traditional administrative theory falls apart when you have this uncontrolled entity that distributes information of all kinds indiscriminately.
Your tax dollars at work. Expect disruptions on the information highway.
(Damn, and I'd promised myself no more info superhighway jokes).
See that long UID - that's what you get for lurking too long
While I agree that we shouldn't start over reacting, it may be a harbinger of things to come. I'm not sure where the line will be drawn, but the net of 'old' was based on a free flow of information, clearly that has been lost. Who will make the stand?
8 years ago when the net was young? Wha...? Clearly the mid and late 80's didn't count... Stupid Archie...
Instead of raising your voice, try strengthening your argument.
You do realize that the US Government has the capacity to disable and/or shoot down objects in orbit.
Not to mention if your site ever gets slashdotted, the resulting radio energy being fired from all the different transmitter would have the same effect...
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
This is good example of why businesses such as www.havenco.com will become more important in the future. Volunteer-based sites and non-profits will need to rely on sovereign nations such as Sealand for hosting services which are outside of the jurisdiction of our "democratic" law enforcemnet authorities. Mirroring and distributed networking architectures are still physically located somewhere. Unfortunately, there will be fewer and fewer nations willing to stand up to Western law enforcement in the future. Hence, business will boom for those nations willing to provide truly secure and sovereign hosting environments, much like the Caribbean does now for banks and investment firms.
"Nothing is impossible for the man who refuses to listen to reason"
The internet was young 8 years ago??? Maybe more like 18...
"There are 10 types of people in this world--Those that understand binary, and those that do not..."
The Internet is just rowdy. Bruce Sterling's take on it: one of the few places the Average American is daily approached by criminals attempting to steal everything they own! [referring to 419 scams, and I'm paraphrasing]
Freedom is a double edged sword.
If we ask the Government to police spam, or if we ourselves don't keep copyrighted material off file sharing systems, we're inviting Government to come and police what we, the geeks, have not self-policied. What we will not govern, they will.
Nature abhors a vaccume, and The State abhors an anarchy.
And with good reason!
Hexayurt - open source refugee shelter,
Reminds me of a story I read once but can't find right now. It's the future, and some college kid reads a book from a friend he needs for his degree but can't afford to buy. Reading another person's book is illegal, and he's stressed that the government will bust him and his girlfriend. ...
10 karma points to s/he who finds this story. It's perfect for this topic.
That ones easy, and I'm sure many here knows it:
"The Right to Read" by Richard Stallman.
(No, I'm not expecting any karma)
Jedidiah
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
the right to read
How is the slippery slope argument a logical fallacy? Each little expansion of government adds to the overall momentum of expanding government (the general precedent if you will), which makes it a little bit easier to achieve the next expansion of government. To see how this works, simply observe the exponential growth of the US federal government since Lincoln.
With the Internets, there's lot of networking to go around and plenty of places to run and hide.
Given that neither of them has a human brain. People perceive; Net and Government are Tools that People use to do things. People have various opinions.
The whole slashdot article's based on a fallacy.. kind of lame.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
That's the one. Thanks, I bookmarked it.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
Its always been amazing to me the change in the way the net feels when going to various websites. This change happened around 97 or 98. It was different before, it seemed bigger. Now it always feels like the net is smaller than before, even though it is still growing.
Atually, I did some googling of Indymedia.
From the fiasco that was the 2000 Shadow Convention, from being visited by the NSA, to this; it's not enough evidence to cite a pattern, but it is enough to give one pause. It's a good thing the web has a long memory (well, at least until your drives get confiscated).
The fact that no one knows why the drives were siezed is or who initiated the action is sufficient cause for alarm.
There is a seemingly absence of due process. Why shouldn't you be concerned?
It's simply an attempt at justification.
acting in compliance with a court order pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), which establishes procedures for countries to assist each other in investigations such as international terrorism, kidnapping and money laundering.
The bits in bold - those are reasons for having personal property confiscated. I will remain skeptical until I see some government accuse IndyMedia directly of one of these charges.
--
a) Smith
b) Jones
c) nose-picking
d) puppy
e) nibble
f) lumpy
g) yellow
h) CmdrTaco
Really, what other reason does one have for seeking a position in government?
Personal ambition?
Access to young interns willing to do anything to go up the organizational ladder?
Profi^H^HPolitical donations?
Try The Empire Strikes First by Bad Religion.
OK mod me down now.
"We reserve the right to transfer your personal information in the event of a transfer of ownership of Yelp!, such as acquisition by or merger with another company. In such an event, Yelp! will notify you before information about you is transferred and becomes subject to a different privacy policy."
Read: After this service gets big enough, we're going to make a s-load of money selling your email (and all of your friends' as well) to another company.
It is because of things like this that we need technology like I2P and Freenet more than ever. Freenet seems to be stuck in a morass and making no progress but I2P is useful now and would have prevented Indymedia's servers from being taken down.
I hate the thought that the government might decide to enforce other countries' web content laws when it comes to American websites, but I could see it happening, slowly, bit by bit (no pun intended).
"Sure," they drawl as they handcuff a webmaster and load his computer into the paddy wagon next to him, "Your site is protected Free Speech here in the USA, but we got a complaint from the Saudi Arabian authorities about it, so we have no choice but to take you into custody so that they can press charges against you. Sorry, but in accordance with Saudi Arabian law, you don't get access to a lawyer, your hands will be chopped off, and any women coming to visit you in jail will be enslaved."
Is this going to start happening? Sure would be a great way to keep private citizens off of the web.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
Isn't this exactly the problem that Freenet was designed to solve?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Democracy + USA = ROFLOLAL
IPv6 is still reverse compatible. And once this is standardized it will still have these loopholes available. Unless they deem to remove the compatibility in the future.
You can tell where someone is via ip address. Take for example ip2location.com. They pin point me to my exact city, as well as provide longitue and latitude, right on the front page.
I might make an exception for terrorism, which needs to be fought long, fully, and completely -- however this appears to have been nothing of that sort.
When I run my country, that won't be allowed.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
To be honest, I know that it's not in this instance. I just wanted to preempt all the inevitable "slippery slopes are illogical" arguments that were destined to follow. I guess I traded that for "slippery slope is logical" instead.
Is trying to keep me down!
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Governments: "Oh no, it's the internet, hit it with a stick and see if it goes away. Then file laws we have no idea how to enforce."
Corps: "We must use the internet to expand our web of mindless consumers!"
RIAA: "Look, #103885439 just logged into Yahoo, Sue him!"
Microsoft: "..." (Bill Gates was unable to join chat, rumours state computer has been comprimised by a new trojan)
Users: "Finally, I'm online, now all I have to do is avoid the sticks, try not to buy anything and everything, not get dragged into court, all while trying to keep my computer secure."
You will be baked, and there will be cake.
They don't make it a habit of releasing information on pending cases..
Nor should they..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well the article doesn't raise many new ideas, but it is worth thinking about where the 'net is headed.
On one hand governments in many places are working overtime to regulate what appears on user's browsers. Sometimes it's through legislation like the DMCA, intended to protect corporate interests, and sometimes it's though the kind of wholesale blocking practised by the Chinese government.
Yet as fast as these rules and technologies are put in place, people are finding ways around them, whether though proxys, anonymous browsing, encryption, or P2P clients.
I really do wonder which side will win. The government has the force of Law, and these days that is pretty much always multi-national. Users though have the force of numbers. Even though the RIAA et al publicly attack teenagers and grandmothers, P2P sharing via edonkey or bittorrent goes on unabated.
If that technology can be used to share copyrighted software and music, it can be used to share all manner of "subversive" materials that your government doesn't want you to see.
So my real question is:
Is the genie well and truly out of the bottle?
Three Squirrels
"... Net War columnist Wendy Grossman in an article discussing the recent raids on Indymedia. She makes an interesting case."
Interesting? How so ? Because it concerns Indymedia, which is well known for propagating typical left wing.... oh, my bad, CORRECT* opinions ?
*) read: anti-capitalist, anti-corporate, anti-US, anti-bush, andti-prettymucheverything.
Indymedia isn't indy, it's just siding with those (or rather, BY those) who wants to give the impression that they have the real meat on news events. Too bad they're just as slanted as they claim FOX news is, only more so.
The servers were removed because they posted names and addresses of Police officers. Indy was asked to remove them and refused.... free speach is all well and good but we don't need to be posting names and addy's of the police men that keep us safe.
http://cryptome.org/fbi-imc/fbi-imc-doc.htm/
amatuer orbital server farms.
Brings a whole new meaning to "my server crashed".
I bought a house in a neighborhood once where the police didn't come around very often - when they did they always got abused and spit on. The neighbors kinda ran a "free-for-all" - always looking into each other's windows, dropping in for visits during all hours of the day and night, all crowding into one house without asking first and leaving the place a mess.
Once a neighbor bought a new grill and chained it to their porch. It was stolen a few hours later. Worse, the thief went around bragging how easy it was to break the lock, so other people with the same locks suddenly noticed their stuff was gone, too.
I decided to landscape my front yard. You know, to dress the place up a little? I decided to put in a "please keep off the grass" sign to help keep it looking nice. The neighbors all took this as an insult and made it a point to trash my yard whenever they had the chance. I tried to offer the neighborhood something new, something original - something to be enjoyed within the context of my house. Now it's gone and everybody's houses look the same - if somebody sees something they like, they just take it. We've got a hodgepodge of different styles, different looks - but the same sense of mediocrity pervades everybody's property. Why try to be new and different? If somebody tries something new, they just get pounded down.
The neighborhood used to be nice. People knew the rules and abided by them. You used to be able to tell where people were from by just looking at their name. New folks moved in, though. Rules starting getting broken. We would try to show them what was right - but they would just change their name and keep doing wrong. Now even the "nice" people have given up and given in to what the neighborhood has become.
I can't let my kids walk alone - day or night. I admit that I sometimes like to go over to one of the "bad" houses, but most of the time I just wish they weren't there because I don't like what I turn into when I go.
I'm thinking of moving. Trouble is, every place I look is just like my neighborhood is now. I guess I'll stay and see how things go. I'm afraid the police are going to start getting mean, though. They'll have to make the laws apply to everybody - but it may take harsh action to stop some of my neighbors from doing wrong. That will be a drag, because I'll have to live with it, too.
MASTER CHIEF DIES IN HALO 2
Should read:
le chef principal meurt dans le halo deux
Please fix, a shoddily-constructed troll just makes slashdot suck even worse. thanks.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The endpoints have to be rooted in the physical world as people will have to use them!
with one exception.
People Using the internet at 40,000 ft on british airways fligt maybe better off..
Why does yahoo do this
I think it's almost time we built our new internet, free as it once was, and let the governments and business sectors of the world overtake the old, "broken" (read: censored) version.
PS: In our new one, we should use at least gigabit ethernet for every connection...
========
77 77 77 2e 6d 65 6c 76 69 6e 73 2e 63 6f 6d
Just what we need, more junk in orbit awesome!
you keep saying that, and I'll keep posting this:
That's not true, and bungie has stated the opposite. Why would they kill the main character in a game series that will make them hundreds of millions of dollars? (Halo 2 has over 2 million pre-orders)
http://cryptome.org/fbi-imc/fbi-imc-doc.htm
The took rackspaces servers...it just so happened that indys data was on it...sheer coincidence and hardly the governments fault!
Seriously though...that's a loophole that needs to be closed...I would really really check with your ISP about who 'owns' the physical hardware when you buy space (i.e. do you 'rent' the property, or just use it to put data on). Very valid question for anyone looking into hosting something. At the moment I doubt that they have to tell indy anything, they already have told the property owners (rackspace) why they were taken...then hit them with a gag order, which is quite clever (diabolical?) really.
Anyway, host-er beware...check the legality...if they're actually renting you the hardware I would imagine that anyone wanting to take it would have to issue the seizure order to you, otherwise they can issue it to your ISP and tell you nothing...though IANAL.
They usually back up the argumment with "where are the internment camps?" and "where are the tanks in the street?" type statements, implying a belief that slippery slopes are only proven after hitting rock bottom.
If Indymedia does not want any of those government control....why have that copyright symbol put up?
Do they want justice from Govt when someone infringes it?
Why does yahoo do this
hope the highways of the Internet will not become more few.
Or should I say "Internets?
"Story"? You mean that "Political Propaganda" by a "certified crackpot" don't you?
You can't seriously be basing any sort of opinion on THAT "story" are you?
God help us all...
are you new? articles like this one have ALWAYS been "in place" here.
We have a lot more to worry about from the European Union then the United States. At least here we have the first admendment.
, 56294,00 .html?tw=wn_story_related
See:
http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367
(qoute from article)
Specifically, the amendment bans "any written material, any image or any other representation of ideas or theories, which advocates, promotes or incites hatred, discrimination or violence, against any individual or group of individuals, based on race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as religion if used as pretext for any of these factors."
(unqoute)
So that sets up the legality and justification for filtering out huge swaths of the internet and silencing "subversive" groups. Which is something that is wholesale illegal in the US for the government to do.
All you need is the justification. We all know how political correctness works.
So apperently Europe is heading towards the same direction as many middle eastern countries and communist countris (china in particular is very heavy handed in it's methods of censorship).
Of course some guy will argue how censorship in Europe is a GOOD thing, while the US is a huge monster against human rights. Oh well.
It's like the bible says (paraphasing it a bit):
before you point out the splinter of wood in another person's eye, first remove the beam of wood from your own eye.
It is, but you also have to consider not only Indymedia, but other cases as well.
In the Indymedia case it is interesting how Swiss (or Italian or whatever else) governments can simply go to any MLAT partner and seize anything they want for their "investigation." Were Indymedia or Rackspace in violation of the U.S. or U.K laws? I don't know, but it doesn't look that way since neither British law enforcement, nor FBI initiated this action. So, by the magic of the MLAT, you, as an online service provider or entity, are subject to the laws of other countries where you don't even operate or have anything to do with. Want to express your frustration with EU, World Bank, WTO, etc.? It only has to be "illegal" in one country, and your speech will be suppressed for all the rest.
The practice is becoming increasingly common - Yahoo! cannot list Nazi memorabilia in its auctions (the burden is on Yahoo! to make sure the French don't have access to them), Google cannot return advertisements for the words/phrases that are trademarked in the U.S., etc. So, the trend is that once you are online, you are subject to laws of all the nations that could potentially have access to your content or services.
I think it is premature to say that the Internet is doomed, but the beginning of this trend is troubling.
But you're right, the real problem comes from both sides over-interpreting the concern. When we start to take it to mean that we ought not transgress any boundary or we will necessarily transgress all boundaries, it becomes clear that the concern is particularly unreasonable.
Nope. You can at most tell the regional NIC doing the assigning (EU, APAC, NA) and the company to which the block was assigned.
NICs like RIPE and ARIN do not place restrictions upon where within your network you may use the block of addresses. So, if RIPE assigns my ISP a /18 for use within the EU, I could assign addresses from that block to customers in Spain, UK, France, etc.
My peers would only insist (or maybe only ask nicely) that I advertise the block with an EU Autonomous System (AS) also obtained from RIPE.
--kirby
If you think $10 or $100 a month is too much for a server, you'll be shocked at the cost of doing this. And you'll have to have a powerful transmitter and reciever on the ground in order to use the dish. Then there's the maintainaince, energy as well as launch costs.
The authorities can just raid the base station and be done with it.
HAHA, Did anyone else read this as "The Empire Strikes Back" woohhoho... hahaha OMG LMAOOL!!!
Mr Rutan, could you loft my rack? thanks.
Why did I chuckle when I read that? Was it something about the thought of a blonde bimbo saying that to a rich aerospace guy?
Say 15-20 years ago, any type of commercial activity, including advertising, was pretty much banned. If someone so much as tried to sell their car on the internet, they whole on-line community would come down on them for "spoiling" the sanctitiy of the free exchange of intellectual discourse. Now, of course, the exact opposite seems to be true - nothing but e-commerce and advertisements.
I think we all take it as a given that these satellites will have antiballistic lasers, plasma shielding and, what the hell, let's throw in an orbital particle beam platform.
[insert witty quote here]
the resulting radio energy being fired from all the different transmitter would have the same effect...
Not when all your transmitter are belong to us!
I think the only reason the servers were snagged is because it was a lot faster than an iterative screen-scrape of every page of the site. Which could be done, and probably could be done with neither a warrant nor a subpoena (it's public information with no expectation of privacy). So, yeah, fine use an orbital server farm, take the 1-2 second transmission lag penalty for the round-trip, and then pay the bandwidth bill.
Only for one-way traffic. No interactive services.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
... why all of us supposed "gun-nuts" etc. keep firearms because we don't trust the government to preserve our natural rights...
I'm really just disgusted, because if this was a story about someone's "arsenal" being confiscated by the government, the slashdot crowd would be all against the person, denigrating his/her character and intentions.
Freedom isn't free, and if you're not willing to back up your freedoms with the threat of deadly force, you _will_ eventually have them taken away from you.
is another's freedom fighter. I thought this was a load of BS when I first heard it but now I'm beginning to understand why this statement is true.
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Firstly, there are current 152 Indymedia websites, not 50 as reported. That means that the loss of ahimsa (the server that was taken down) caused 13% of the IMC (Indymedia Centre) sites to go down, not the "more than 40 percent" quoted.
Secondly, the article makes it sound as if there has been no progress on the cypherpunk front since 1996. While progress has been annoyingly slow, the growth of peer to peer technologies over the last few years has prompted a number of experiments - TOR, I2P, Freenet, etc. (see the I2P network comparisons page for a list), some of which seem to be getting pretty mature.
Thirdly, the bigger sites on ahimsa were up again in hours/days. They would have been up even quicker if a proper backup / mirror system had been in place, and in fact Indymedia techies have now been spurred into action by the ahimsa seizure to make sure the network is more robust. Think about this: the leftie scene is not particularly filled with technologically adept people. The Indymedia network runs on a shoestring budget (in terms of money / time). Despite this, the network was *still* able to respond and repair the damage fairly rapidly.
And finally, don't overestimate the competence of the FBI in this matter. Apparently when trying to do something about the picture of Swiss undercover cops on nantes.indymedia.org, one of the people they approached was from Seattle Indymedia, which has nothing to do with running either ahimsa or nantes.indymedia.org. And anyway, the disputed picture was quickly mirrored all over the place when it became "notorious" (just like the DeCSS code).
So, while I think Grossman's article is a good counterbalance to the mystical rants of people like John Perry Barlow, she leaves out a number of facts that show that the Internet can indeed be used to "route around censorship". Its all a matter of effort - in the 1970s and 80s, the ANC got around government censorship in South Africa by planting "pamphlet bombs" to scatter leaflets at busy rail stations (the cost: activists spending several years in jail). The Internet allows the subversion of censorship with far less effort, but of course it doesn't do it "by magic".
The US is a Replublic. Not a Democracy. In the US we elect representatives to make decisions for us.
Unfortunately power corrupts. Those representatives make decisions based not on the needs of all the people they represent, but based on their own personal needs. Of course the thing that anyone in power needs most is to stay in power.
The primary purpose of the beurocracy is to maintain itself. The larger it grows the more resources are required to maintain it. Thus we have regulatory panels, review boards, oversite commitees, and departments dedicated to managing communication between other departments!
Governments act to protect themselves just like any other organism. New segments (regulations and personell) will be formed to protect against any new threat -citizens having easy access to information which might make the government look bad, for example. This is a bad thing. Ergo government is bad.
We need government. That much is true. But only because we havent discovered anything better, yet.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
Suppose a country is in the middle of a war (a real one, not that terrorist crap). You want all information currently being processed to be available to the public under a freedom of information act? No you don't, the bad guys would win.
Law enforcement is no different. There are valid reasons not to tell 'victims' of an investigation, what's being investigated.
What is important, is that procedures used for such investigations are under public scrutiny, and that actions must be checked against those procedures. If any investigator could decide for themselves where/what to investigate, that would be wrong. So that's why we have judges in place, that have to be asked for search warrants before police can bust in a home somewhere. That police should explain to a judge why they need to do that, and if they can't make a case, don't get a warrant to do so. That doesn't mean all specifics of each case need to be public.
The other thing is that the intrusion should be proportional to the nature of the crime, and be kept limited where possible. Like seize only harddrives instead of entire servers, and return them asap. Also, details should be made public, when investigation is over and no wrongdoing found.
Well, so much for the theory anyway. Details and practices may vary...
Frankly, that's the point of the slippery slope. A gigantic boulder is poised above an innocent grandma, and each thing they throw at it only serves as a wedge to get the rock moving.
Sounds like a reasonable conclusion to expect that rock to crush granny eventually (unless she's rescued by Super Man.)
You fool - you used your freedom of speech to freely write and so you weren't censored.
Ignorant morons.
cannot have a true democracy.
Once you get past a few tens of thousands of individuals, a genuinely representative democracy is no longer a realistic possibility because you lose the ability of every member to directly address the forum deciding the issues. What is fucked up is that we still refer to the US's government as a democracy when that's really no longer an appropriate term.
A true democracy would be based on referrendums on issues which people would vote on directly. Real democracy does not require representatives to speak on issues. Anybody who wishes to participate in the congress may participate. Representatives in a real democracy only serve to organize the democratic institutions, not decide upon issues for the citizens. The citizens must decide on the issues for themselves in a public forum in a real democracy.
That's how a real democracy works. But, like I pointed out, you really can't use this system once your population grows too large because the possibility for direct dialogue that is an essential part of the decision making process becomes unmanageable.
Intriguingly, a forum system not unlike Slashdot could be used to modernize the ancient concept of direct participation in democracy and apparently can scale up to around a million users and still maintain some functionality.
So, Slashdot could become the replacement for the misused sense of democracy that we now have in the States. We'll just break the granularity down into sections of one million instead of States.
For some less populated states this won't be much of a change. But for places like California or New York it will create the issue of major legal distinctions between geographically close districts. You'll be able to traffic in kilos of Coke in Santa Monica, but be careful when you cross over into Orange County.
I'd hate to have to do onsite service on *that* rack...
"Um, could you cycle the power?"
"It's solar powered, what do you want me to do, cycle the sun?"
"If you would, thanks!"
Etc.
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
You cant always tell. At first glance the information can be misleading.
Example: I am sitting in California, USA. The IP address I am using is commonly identified as originating in France. Unless I tell them otherwise, many common services (google, yahoo, etc.) display the french version by default when I connect to them.
"You want to know how to help your kids? Leave them the fuck alone." -George Carlin
In theory, they might want to fix some of the really broken laws that have been passed...
Particularly troubling for my own concept network, which I first conceived when I mistakenly thought there was no such thing as an international search warrant. Oh well.
But if it's a Microsoft Passport, we won't have to worry.
It'll be easily cracked, just like Windows.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
If it was young eight years ago, how would you describe it some 30+ years ago, when it was first created.
The Signal/Noise ratio can be improved in two ways. Remaining silent is the OTHER way.
The INTERNET tends to route around them, but that's not the issue..
The damned stuffs still stored on hard drives, and served off of machines..
Note that they tend not to come to your house, then goto your ISP, and take your mail spool.
Nosiiree. They take your stuff.
The internet is free. As free as the wind. But it's hard to catch that when the big kid takes your damned bike..
-- I'm the root of all that's evil, but you can call me cookie..
I believe you can determine this, to a point. Maybe not country, but region (continent?) I've heard people talk about having to block all of Asia after reviewing audit logs to see that most attacks come from there.
How would that work, if I'm in the US, and attempt to access a server in London, am I then exempt from US law? If I'm subjected to both countries laws, what if they conflict? I'm not sure how the whole passport idea would work in cyberspace. If I physically travelled to London, I'd be subject to their laws, and (correct me if I'm wrong) exempt from US law.
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Freedom of expression on the Internet is still possible if you understand where to go to have your controversial content well-received, or at least tolerated. Indymedia, a leftist website that's made itself a fair share of enemies among the US establishment, was absolutely stupid to have their content hosted in England, a rather staunch US ally.
For example, HAMAS and similar Islamic militant/resistance organizations have sites hosted in the Netherlands and Germany. Most anywhere else and they'd be shut down and probably packed off to a Mossad dungeon.
Iraqi Resistance publishes Albasrah.net in the Netherlands, too. They've yet to be shut down or "disappeared" to Guantanamo.
NAMBLA found hosting in Germany, after they were repeatedly harassed and shut down in the US.
If you're Iranian or Chinese, you'd have to be pretty dumb to try and set up an anti-government site in your own country, but anywhere in the west you'd be received as a hero and a freedom fighter.
A Chechen website called Kavkaz Center was hosted in Lithuania, publishing news, essays, and communiques from their resistance fighters. (Until the Beslan attacks when Russia was probably finally able to exert enough pressure on the former SSR to get the site shut down.)
Of course, Germany is far from a "free country" -- try hosting a neo-Nazi site and you'll find yourself fined and possibly in jail. Same with in France. See how far you get with "hate speech" in Canada nowadays, too. But, you can set one up in the US and no one will touch it.
Liberty in your lifetime
The "Slippery Slope" is a LOGICAL fallacy, not a COMMON SENSE fallacy. Obviously if we've seen things go from bad to worse, we should be on the look out. That's COMMON SENSE. But things do not always go from bad to worse, sometimes they stay the same or get better. That's why the "Slippery Slope" is not useful in an argument based purely on formal logic. Formal logic deals in absolutes.
Common Sense:
Let's donate to the EFF because the PATRIOT act takes some freedoms away and it's a slippery slope to having all our freedoms being taken away.
This is not a formal argument. It's a statement. The slippery slope is used for effect. It's an alegory, and a fine use if it if I do say so myself.
Formal Argument:
The government has enacted the Patriot Act
The Patriot Act takes away some freedoms.
When some freedomes are removed, eventually all freedomes are removed (hello slippery slope!)
---------------
Conclusion: The Government will eventually take away all our freedoms.
This is a false argument. The conclusion may or may not be true, but the argument does not support it's truth. The slippry slope statement is a fallacy and is easily negated, thus negating the whole argument.
=Shreak
Clue: The internet was pretty mature 20 years ago.
It just wasn't as easy-to-use for the point-and-drool crowd.
As I understand it, law enforcement agencies raid ISPs for evidence, not to censor things. If their goal was to censor things, why wouldn't they take the backups? That Indymedia has backups to restore from pretty much shoots holes through any 'They are out to censor things argument'.
They take systems so that they can examine them at their leisure and make sure that they find whatever evidence that they are looking for. Also, it is pretty common practice for police play their cards close during an investigation. How is this case at all special in that aspect? What do you want from them, a nice flowery card that says, 'don't start destroying data, but we are investigating you?'
You can take off your tinfoil hats now.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
"Free Speech is all well and good until they let thuh neegrahs and thuh wimmins get heard."
Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
However the nature of the internet has changed in the last 8 - 10 years. I remember designing simple webpages back in high school 10 years ago and even my first couple years in college when search engines, especially Google in the early days, brought a wealth of research information. However one had to be careful and double check facts because like every medium, not everything publish on the net is accurate. That has only gotten worse. I can remember the dates of people's birth being wrong. Although most likely due to editing/typing error rather than intentional misinformation.
Today, I find the internet an increasing annoyance, not a convience. Granted, I've made a pretty decent living as a consultant in IT because the world of the internet has gotten a lot darker. Even with Spamassassin and Junk filtering, 50% of my email or more is still spam or viruses. I even switched to Macintosh for my daily use. Partely because I fix everyone's Windows machines all day, partley because its a Unix OS with application support from major commercial vendors, and because it works. But I've gone from website design to helping businesses deal with Spam, viruses, spyware, etc. etc..
Searching on google anymore is oftentimes annoying as the first 20 results are someone trying to sell me something that's spent lots of $$$ for SEO. Not only that, but there is a lot of crap on the internet these days and a lot of it is Opinion. If I want to get opinions, and a good laugh, I'll watch Bill O'Riley for the first 10 minutes or so.
Anymore I check my email, visit a couple sites on a routine basis, and get off. Even my dad picks up a dozen or so spyware cookies just going around visiting his couple sites a day every week.
I work with more average joes than geeks or lawyers and people are fed up with it. They don't care if it does take government intervention to do so. They don't really want government to be involved, but to them clearly the internet cannot regulate itself has was the popular belief 5 years ago.
Something has to give, and generally people (for better or worse) will turn to government.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Political Review. Also known as talking out my ass, but it's always good to try out new ideas.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Wendy's point is that anything with a traceable physical location can be physically seized, suppressed, stamped out. Freedom online, like everywhere else, varies inversely with government's ability to suppress it. Civil rights anywhere are always a tug of war between the need to track down bad guys and the need to control the definition of crime and bad guy.
Sadly, there isn't any place left to go that isn't under the firm control of some official government. There is no more frontier, no where to go.
That's a total load of crap. The real truth is that you prefer all the comforts and benefits that a strong, stable government provides and are simply unwilling to forgo those and actually suffer the hardships of living by your own skills in the wilderness as the pioneers you glamourize did years ago. Even in the US, you can still drop out of civilization and go live in the middle of nowhere out west. If you do this, you may have to sacrifice your effete whinging on Slashdot, however.
"slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you say beacuse of something something else WILL happen. It is not a fallacy if you say because of something something else COULD (or is very likely even) happen. I find that people that scream about the "slippery slope fallacy" are usually doing so because they have no other arguments to back up their position.\
This is the stupidest thing I've ever read on Slashdot. The point of the slippery slope is that there isn't a strict cause and effect relationship between the antecedents and consequent of a conditional statement, and hence a proposition representing this "slipperly slope," (A -> B ->
Given that, tell me, in a proposition composed of invalid slippery slope consequentials (A -> B ->...-> I), does the truth of A make it any more possible (or even very likely) for I to happen? Or is the possibility of I independent of A? Let's recall that a slippery slope occurs precisely when a casual link does not exist between the elements of the conditional. If a casual link did exist, the conditional would be satisified, and (A -> B ->...-> I) would be a valid statement. But since the elements aren't related, the truth of the statement A has no affect on the possibility of I being the case. That's the point of a slippery slope - no casual relationship exists and hence the deduction is invalid. If A doesn't have a casual relationship with an I, then why would you claim that making A the case would make I any more likely to be the case? Cause necessarily precedes effect. Logic reflects this.
Slashdot postings usually worry me, but the insightful modifier on this one is particularly distressing. I'm shocked that someone didn't catch this.
Read here for more:
http://www.drury.edu/ess/Logic/Informal/Slipper
-Oobob
I find it disturbing that Federal autorities of any Nation can act on behalf of other Nations without having to declare what Nation they are acting on behalf of, especially in cases like this where several national jurisdictions are involved.
It's called mathematical induction. The hard part is showing that one restraint on free speech will produce another restraint on free speech and so on.
"slippery slope" is only a fallacy if you say beacuse of something something else WILL happen. It is not a fallacy if you say because of something something else COULD (or is very likely even) happen.
A slippery slope argument is fallacious unless the arguer can justify why each step will lead to the next. As in any informal argument, the justification doesn't have to be airtight, but it does have to be reasonably solid, and in the case of a slippery slope argument the standards are much higher. "Very likely to happen" connections between the steps are very weak when you take enough of them together. For example, suppose the argument says that A leads to K through a sequence of 10 steps, and suppose that each connection is 90% likely to follow. The probability of K happening is only 35%.
So, where the OP said:
I would say: While the "slippery slope" argument in itself is a logical fallacy in most instances, on occasion it seems to be worthy of consideration.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Sorry, it's not safe there either. See this.......
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Sorry, it's not safe there either. As earlier discussed, the "State" already has plans for that contingency......
Cool! Amazing Toys.
http://www.havenco.com/
in the Principality of Sealand:
http://www.sealandgov.com/
You can read the history at the second address. It's a sovereign nation created on an old anti-aircraft platform a few miles off the coast of the UK. It slipped into de facto nation status before that oxymoron "international law" made another such country impossible. This is for real. It's not a joke.
I suspect IndyMedia's woes are linked to some financial scam, possibily involving banking. That would explain claims that Switzerland is involved. And whatever it is has to be illegal in the US and UK for legal action to be taken there. So, it isn't selling old Nazi junk.
--Mike Perry, Inkling blog , Seattle
Typically, the US Supreme Court holds that for a consutitutional right to be impinged, the government must prove 2 things:
1) That there is a compelling interest for so limiting the right and
2) That there is no way to accomplish this interest without limiting the right at least as much as the law they are upholding.
This is how it is balanced at the moment. I think that this is reasonable.
Of course, the real abuses in government powers here have been due to strange interpretations of things like the Commerce clause which mostly was seen to give Congress whatever they wanted. This is starting to change in part due to the rise of a larger number of (temporally) conservative justices.
Note that this issue of Commerce Clause vs. 10th ammendment doesn't really impact directly the legality of an issue like abortion-- that Roe v. Wade rested in part on the 14th ammendment which specifically extended 4th ammendment protections to include protections against the states rather than just against the Federal Government. So states rights issues are not really at issue (this is not an issue of federal power).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Internet was here in 1968-1969. You do the math.
"This is patently false. There is no correlation between security and liberty."
If people perceive there to be a correlation between security and liberty, it will tend to become a reality. Thus, if they think reducing liberty will increase security they will often go for it.
The perception of reality is far more important than the reality itself. Why do you think all those pieces of green paper/cloth (or ones and zeros) have value? Because people think they do and/or want them to.
They have laws against hate speech, and in the meanwhile you've got obscenity laws (like those middle eastern countries you mentioned), USAPATRIOT and the DMCA. Every country has restrictions on speech.
Also, China is not strictly communist. They have a rapidly growing capitalist economy based out of the cities where the worker has far less protections than the US (or, especially, western Europe). It has more in common with a fascist dictatorship. A better example would have been North Korea.
Hands in my pocket
I am always amazed at people's grasp of the abstract; that they can imagine something not present, and realize that object's or idea's value and significance. You don't what you've missed until it is gone.
Hold this thought...
By not challenging an arbitrary label or definition, you perpetuate a way of thinking with an inherent bias. Read: IngSoc.
There is no conspiracy theory. This is not some Robert Ludlam airport read.
I just went to a book reading for Chuck Palahniuk's latest book. Incidentally, he he had some very interesting things to say about censorship.
The point: in the Q&A, when it was suggested that his writing is negative and dark, he chuckled and said something to the effect that "I just read the newspaper ".
Look around. Read the goddamn paper. Watch the news, and factor out that bias.
You will still plainly see the loss of civil liberties that we, as Americans, are experiencing, and it is frightening.
OK, back to the original thought: a personal testimony. These ideas mean nothing to most people until they effect them personally.
You don't know what you've missed until you've lost it. I am a small business owner. I am a contractor for the Government. My business line is tapped. My Internet connection is tapped.
Deep breath. My home line is tapped. Another f&^*& deep breath. Personal conversations with family, friends, girlfriends, BUSINESS is made more or less public knowledge to non-secuity Government workers whom I serve in the building I work at.
It sounds whacky, but it is the fucked and messed up truth. I get significant chunks of conversation repeated back to me, paraphrased. Some people let things slip. Privledged information that was discussed privately comes up in discussions often.
What can I do? For one, I gave notice on my contract, and am getting the hell out of the building as soon as I can.
Imgaine this for two seconds, folks. Who in their right mind wants this kind of attention? Who want's their personal lives made public business? And for no pay!!!
Disclaimer: I'm not any meds nor do I need to be on any. I don't do drugs and I don't drink near often as I want because I work a bunch and don't have the time.
I'm not sure what I else I can say.
"Slippery slope" is not a sufficient moniker to determine if something is a fallacy or not. It describes a particular format of argument, which may or may not be fallicious depending on its component parts.
For example, If your argument has premises: A leads to B, and B leads to C, and C leads to D, therefore A leads to D, that is a slippery slope argument. It only becomes fallicious if you switch certainty levels partway through, as in:
A always leads to B,
B leads to C often,
C leads to D often,
Fallacy: "Therefore A always leads to D."
Not Fallacy: "Therefore A has a good chance of leading to D."
It's like the difference between calling an argument a "dichotomy" and calling it a "false dichotomy". One is the generic term for the pattern, and the other is the term for when it is misused.
Good dichotomy argument:
All people are either in the "bald" group or the "have hair" group.
Brad is not a person who has hair.
Therefore Brad is bald.
Bad "false dichotomy" argument:
All people are either blonde haired, red-headed, or black-haired.
Brad is neither blonde nor red-headed.
Therefore Brad is black-haired. (Nope, Actually he's bald.)
Calling all slippery slope arguments fallacies is just like calling all dichotomies false dichotomies.
And by the way you claimed that formal logic deals in absolutes. This is false. Note how many formal argument textbook examples use the word "some", as in, "Some X are Y".
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Horrible ping times, though.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Although others may believe that our policies justify their actions, this cannot be the case.
Consider two parties (nations, religions, whatever,) with mutually exclusive goals. If we have policies that favor one party, the other would have justification to fly airliners into buildings using your logic. If we favor/disfavor both parties equally, then both parties have justification to murder thousands of innocent civilians according to your logic. So, by your logic, no matter what my actions, at least one party will be offended, and I deserve to have relatives murdered by terrorists. I don't support that train of thought.
The US didn't remove the Afganistan government after the terrorist attack. The US didn't remove Hussein from Iraq until after Hussein repeatedly showed he had no intention of complying with UN resolutions. (You may not agree with whether or not we should be there, but it was obvious that he wasn't cooperating, and UN resolutions supported this.)
I'm not aware of the US forcing religion on other countries - could you provide an example or two to educate me?
Nothing big this time, but doesnt it make sense that while censorship should be banned from the internet, that some things still would be given the GTFO? i mean come on man, in the big picture does alowing the KKK to proliferate on the web actually do anything other than allow the fucks to promote racism more? Kicking some peaple off the web is like arresting some peaple in public, you wouldnt want someone walking around and force-feeding everyone nazi pamphlets and shouting sieg heil, nor would you want the asshole strutting around on the web doing the same. Theres really no difference between the two.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
What I find even more amazing is that the people who refuse to hear a slippery slope argument in this country(America) are usually the first to jump on a "broken glass/windows theroy" or invent one. I strongly think both follow.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Part of the reason that "slippery slope" arguments are so compelling is because they fit most people's intuitive knowledge of human behavior. Most people expect that if it is possible for someone to do "bad" things without fear of consequences, then eventually, someone will do those things.
Slippery slopes may be a logical fallacy, but that doesn't mean they don't have historical precedent.
No, I am not new here. And these type of posts from "michael" have been becoming far more frequent.
I don't think the main problem was the gathering of intelligence. I think the main problem there was that the one man in charge of making decisions based on it, had an agenda, and was not willing to give up his fantasy even though there was convincing evidence that cast doubt upon it. Somehow if the same rumors of WMD were floating around about a make-believe country called No-oil-a-stan that had a dictator twice as cruel but not one drop of crude and without any history of conflict with the US, I don't think Bush would have given it any attention. It would be that thing we read about on page A9 of the paper, like Darfur.The President would be a very naïve man if he believed he was sure enough about these weapons to send thousands of American troops to their deaths.
When it comes to the desire of people to accumulate, wield, and abuse power over others, human nature takes on a level of predicatability not seen outside of a high school phsyics class. Psychohistory writ small, as it were. A person will often willingly give up power. Small, closely-knit groups of them sometimes can do so. Governments of cops and bureaucrats and politicians spread out across 300 million people? They'll take every last ounce they can get.
My family says I'm way to young (25) to be so cynical. What do you think?
Dyolf Knip
"Maybe it's time to change that into, 'Governments perceive the Internet 'as damage, and gang up on it.'"
But the real tough question is who is ganging on it ? The goverment that came to power via undemocratic means and the supporting "Oppressed corporations" ( pre-2000 "oppression" ). But thats is something quite naturally expected!.
BTW sons of the founding fathers who fled the religeous persecution are now facing the corporate
persecution. Tough times!!
--But did the President say something he knew was untrue? In other words, did he lie? No.--
:
I honestly believe that there is more going on in this situation than "did he lie?" A lot of people stand to make a *LOT* of money from this war...
We've been de-stabilizing countries for decades now.(Check out The Project for the New American Century : http://www.newamericancentury.org/) We've been trying to build pipelines in the middle east region for years as well. As I type this, (and I'll have to get the list...) the US has troops affecting the governments of something like 50+ countries all over the planet. Remember the Taliban? *WE* helped get them into power. Saddam Hussain? *WE* gave him the guns and ammo, and also THE EQUIPMENT to MAKE the chemical weapons that he used.
Fact : One company that stands to profit from the war in Iraq is the Carlyle Group. Colon Powell has worked for them. Don Rumsfeld has worked for them as well as
George Bush Sr. - as senior advisior
Frank Carlucci -Carlyle Chairman Emeritus
Former Secretary of Defense
and Deputy Director of the CIA.
James Baker -Carlyle Senior Counselor
Former Sec. of State and Sec. of
the Treasury.
John Major -Former Prime Minister of England.
(continued)
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
(continued)
:
The Bin Laden Family - One of the first multi-million dollar investors in the Group.
Now...what does the Carlyle group do you ask? Investments. Mostly in Defense Contractors, Energy and Power companies, and Telecom and media companies.
My question is this
Do you honestly think that a man who wanted to open up Parks in Alaska for oil drilling, or a man who has done more to relax the EPA's standards for pollution (allowing things like Kodak http://www.kodakstoxiccolors.com/ to continue unabated.) really cares about his fellow man or the enviroment? Look at what the guy has done!
When you ask me, did he lie? Well, honestly I can't prove that he did. But I can surmise from his actions and attitudes that there is a *very* high possibility that he would lie for profit.
Asmodeus
Azazel
Mictian
Your mind is like a parachute. It works best when it's been opened.
As long as servers stay on land belonging to a government
Looks like Havenco is still around...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I didn't need to go further than your own reference...
The site describes it's count as including basically every death occurring during the occupation. Not "civilians killed by the US forces".
If you start reading through their database, you'll notice it includes victims of car-bombings (I don't think the US forces are using car-bombs), a beheaded policeman (not a civilian, not beheaded by US), and people kidnapped / tortured / killed by terrorists. It also includes attacks ON US forces, which killed civilians.
The site database pages include the following:
Here.
"Creativity is allowing ones self to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep" - Scott Adams
Maybe they could hire the same ad firm that polished the U.S. image after we nuked a few hundred thousand civilians in Japan . . .