Slashdot Mirror
Crank Blogging, Like Phone Calling, Now Illegal
On Thursday, President Bush signed into law a must-pass
DoJ appropriations bill
which contained a
little gotcha for the internet.
For decades, making anonymous abusive phone calls has been a federal crime, good for up to two years behind bars -- and the term "abusive" has included threats, harassment, and the much weaker "intent to annoy." Now, that telecommunications law has been extended to include the Internet, so when you post an anonymous troll to wind up your least-favorite blogger, you may break the law. This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts. A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
...does that mean when you get a -1 Flamebait on slashdot, the authorities are dispatched?
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
President Bush sucks
-Sue Me.
My co-worker Steve is a real jerk.
Actually, I think the entire law against crank calling is pretty worthless now, anyway.
We have Caller ID -- we can refuse to answer the phone. If crank calls were a major concern, you'd see market solutions to the problem. Companies would come up with "quiet time" phone features that would prevent any ring after a certain hour unless you coded it with numbers that were acceptable.
As you can see with this law, and thousands of other bad laws, you enter into a slippery slope of stupidity.
The Department of Justice is completely out of control -- nearly 99% of the Department is unconstitutional and unnecessary at the federal level. In this end, this is an abridgement on the freedom of speech. Every time government wants to penalize "edgy" speech, they are just finding another way to control normal speech.
I think we know who the real cranks are in this case -- read the entire law/budget, you'll find more bad things than usual. In fact, I can't see anything in the budget that seems worthwhile anymore.
http://stout.hampshire.edu/~bjk02/princess/
to tell the submitter what an ass he is.
"I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc. "
/spit is for...
That's what
I'm gonna call the cops next time some night elf hunter kills my helpless warlock from shadowmeld :P
I came, I conquered, I coredumped
the HOME of flamers and trolls. ;-)
Soon the forums will be empty as we are all carted off to jail for smart ass comments given with the "intent to annoy".
We seldom regret saying too little but often regret saying too much.
"Intent to annoy"? Every sibling, spouse and co-worker in America could be charged under this clause!
My wife LIVES to annoy me! It is one of her main goals in life. I'm fairly certain each of my kids also has a primary purpose to annoy one or more of their siblings, their mother, all their teachers and many of the other kids at school. Frequently phones are involved.
-Charles
Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
I find this new policy annoying.
should come with a badge now.
I love the smell of Karma in the morning
that's not a personal attack, it's a generalization :P
It's like the difference between racism and slander.
Let me try:
you suck.
Is this an article or an opinion piece (ie. Slashdot via FoxNews)?
Yes, someone calling you a jerk is not necessarily as bad as someone calling you at 3am. What if they call you a fascist? What if you don't have a land-line and your cellphone gets turned off before you go to bed? Is that 3am call more of a problem?
What I'm saying is: don't reduce arguments to childish write-offs, especially when these are supposed to be news threads and not nano-essays.
This wasn't just plain terrible, this was fancy terrible. This was terrible with raisins in it. - Dorothy Parker
To mod you Redundant. Except I never get mod points anymore. Oh well. Zonk is a tool.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
I wonder if people think I suck or if they think I'm great?
So I guess he figured that while he was already taking away our freedoms and bypasing the Constitution and/or other institutions in place to help preserve our freedoms, what's one more little law.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts. A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk.
The law doesn't spell out everything. It's up to judges and juries to decide what qualifies as harrassment. Would they decide repeated 3AM calls is harrassment? Probably. Would they decide somebody calling you a jerk is harrassment? Probably not. But it's something that has to be decided on a case-by-case basis, not something that can be spelled out explicitly by law ahead of time.
I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
No, but if you were a small-time blogger just scraping by on ad revenue, you might need protection from people making your comment system utterly useless with continued abuse. If Slashdot didn't have full-time staff to program things like the moderation system, the comments would be useless. And believe me, people aren't coming to Slashdot for the crappy game reviews, years-old news and dupes.
So now posting 'FP' on slashdot will be a crime?
FCP: First Criminal Post
I ave fellt personally harrased and annoyed by many statements made by politicians. Can I press charges? How can this new law not apply to any form of speech?
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
I can still say what i want... those laws only apply in the U.S
u ne/
And for me its still more the responsibility off the admins.. to bann those childish
users.
Julien.^_^http://free.hostdepartment.com/8/81fort
The intent of the medium should be considered in these kind of laws.
Blogs are public with an implicit invitation ( unless comments are shut off ) by the owner to contact the owner to share your views.
That is not the same with a phone.
... make this largely a moot point. When my comments look like they are coming Thailand or China, there isn't much that can be done.
Even if proxies are blocked, there are other options, such that the neighbors' open AP.
Its relatively easy to do similar things with phones nowdays, thanks to calling cards and VoIP.
Technology always obsoletes the stupidity of congress.
The electric company just called me regarding a possible power outage... is anyone else's refridgerator running?
Too many people think they're hard nuts when they're at the keyboard online.
Certainly if you had a blog which was getting consistent abuse from someone, it'd be nice to be able to stop it by law.
However the harassment factor is a lot lower than with telephone calls, as they're much more liable to annoy in a proactive manner (ringing phone calls every half hour, etc, and I guess that abuse over the phone does affect someone a lot more than words on a webpage). Then again someone anonymous commenting 'wanker' would make most bloggers laugh and think that at least they had something worthwhile to wank with.
You shouldn't be allowed to stalk/harass/abuse someone via any medium.
I'm not concerned with this particular bill as I am with one of the tactics that was used.
Namely, I'm talking about the embedding of other mostly unrelated things into a bill. It's especially bad, since with a bill such as this one, the existance of the DoJ relies on this bill getting passed to get its funding. Because of this, members of congress feeled pressed that the bill must be passed (as was noted in the first sentence of jamie's summary).
Do You Have Prince Albert In A Can?
"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." So basically, we don't have the right to express an opinion on "how much Rupert Murdoch sucks the bag" (which seems to be the current one this week) anywhere (via electronic means apparently) without seeing the inside of a white-collar prison? I didn't realize that INGSOC took over the internet...
I Lost My Virginity While Waiting for BSD to Compile.
And I would rather be spammed for all eternity while being forced to use a Windows box while chained to a boulder and up to my pecker in lava in hell than get any "help" from GW for it.
Cheers,
Ian
Speaking is NOT communication
Are individuals going to be able to force someone like Slashdot to hand over IP records? And then are they going to be able to force an ISP to hand over details?
Or...is this only going to be used by big companies that want to censor peoples' opinions?
I truly hope the first case of this being used tracks down one of my posts. I really hope I get an email saying "You must remove this post blah blah" so I can go add another that says "Fuck you, I am Canadian".
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
A 3 AM phone call is different from a post to blogger.com calling me a jerk. I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
Yes, you're right. What sane person would need such a law?
But on the other hand, I can see how politicians and people in power might need such a law. It would make it illegal to criticize them anonymously.
This law is just part of a continuing effort to erode and limit the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. Continuing attacks on fundamental rights in the United States will continue as long as fear replaces philosophy as the primary tool used to win elections and retain/attain power in elections. It is imperative for citizens of democracies to fight laws which restrict rights -- even if that means protecting the rights of those they find offensive. The test of any action should be whether that action restricts of limits the freedome of others. If it does, then the act is bad., If it does not, then it should be tolerated even if it is ugly and indecent.
If software can't do something useful in 10 minutes, it won't
that'd be funny if you'd posted it anonymously
I wonder how this plays out in the context of l'affaire Seigenthaler?
"Brian Chase, a 38 year old operations manager at Rush Delivery in Nashville, admitted he had placed the allegations there to play a joke on a colleague..." I suppose Chase's intent was to tweak his (unnamed) colleague, not to annoy Seigenthaler...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
^------- by Anonymous Coward, Ha!
Does this mean that we, in the rest of the world, can lay into you guys in the US and there's nothing you can do about it (anonymously)?
I will taunt you a second time!!!
Ha! Your country is really small and you all smell of pooh!
No, INGSOC is puttering along quite nicely, removing paternalism (where's that story about removing time restrictions on liquor sales in England?). AMFASC, on the otherhand, is getting quite out of control.
...is paved with Congressional legislation. Who are they kidding? Just how enforceable is this going to be? Are the federal courts (which are already overburdened with real criminal cases) now to be swamped with case of "he called me a fsck-head on Slashdot?" The intent is good, allowing people to avoid harrassment but the execution is lousy. I can't see this standing up to the inevitable challenge by the ACLU in front of the Supreme Court.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
So, am I concealing my indentity if I don't show my phone number on my outgoing calls and make a Crank Yankers call? Just a thought.
I hope this caused some synapses to fire.
When you troll on Slashdot, you troll with Osama!
Check out ioquake3.org for a great, free, First-Person Shooter engine!
...but I would LOVE for the FBI to be able to track down assholes that I report to them for harrassing me... and have them give me their address. I posted on my LiveJournal about my beloved car that I wrecked, (black ice is eeeeeeevil) with pictures, and some asshole had the gall to post: "(Anonymous) 2005-12-22 10:49 pm UTC (from 65.145.232.121) HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! I wish there was a barfing with laughter emoticon." Best I could get was: 0-1pool232-121.nas116.newark2.nj.us.da.qwest.net Last I checked, that doesn't include his street address. Actually, considering that his address might actually be IN Newark, New Jersey, maybe I'd better have the feds do the arresting. :(
Based on my old account's JEs, I'm sure that a lot of neocons would find me "annoying". Hell, even my new account is rife with JEs and comments that are calculated to annoy. (Too bad today's not Tuesday). What about things like this? What about my freedom of speech that I am supposed to be guaranteed? You know what? Dubya can lick me from crack to sack. And you can quote me on that. I hate that fucking little imbecile.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Apparently you can be annoying if you use your real name. But if you create a fake name then you are breaking the law. Dumb law. But I guess with the war on terrorism being over, the justice department needed something to do. Now they can go after the flood of AC's on slashdot.
'Same speed C but faster'
I'd like to see the first attempted prosecution under this new law.
>ALLIANCE SUCK
>HORDE SUCK
>ALLIANCE SUCK
>HORDE SUCK
>I'm calling the cops!
- Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
...which is inside a certain agency that sends out the caller-ID 000-000-0000. /jot joking //scares the hell out of friends
A real solution to those a**es who corpse camp you in WOW!!!
Thank you Bush, now I won't have to worry about my realm server being full any longer!
The point of all this bullshit is simply to create a web of laws which can be used to ensnare anybody.
The next time some wingnut retard says 'so long as you've done nothing wrong, you've nothing to fear', point this out (and tell them how annoying they are).
I'm not wrong. You haven't thought about it hard enough.
The terrorists is using the Internets!
And I almost forgot: What about the Children!!?!?!
"It's a wonderful idea. But it doesn't work." -- Tad Danielewski
Talk about your topic police...
I don't need federal protection from that Night Elf who keeps /chickening my Orc.
Reroll on a PvP server plzkthxbai.
It should be a crime to prosecute someone unconstitutionally.
Will this apply to inter-galactic cranks as well? I'm still emotionally scarred ever since Wowbagger paid a visit...
Well, well. Another brilliant move to lock up the internet. Way to go Bush!
I'm no American. And I certainly would never follow such a law. I post here Anonymously, intentionally. Or will the admins post my IP with this message? Who knows...
Luckily, I'm no American. However the entire world is starting to get based upon limiting privacy. Sure, let's get those friggin terrorists and let us give away our freedom. Sure thing that we would have let the REAL terrorists win.
Sure, let's lock down the entire internet. Well let me tell you, my name is John Doe. Oh wait, maybe it's not, but I don't give a damn. Let your FBI slaves figure it out for you. Let them figure it out for all bloggers that may be American.
I might start a blog, with nothing but flaming posts against those I hate. With stupid things as this, I might as well add mr. George to the list.
[Kept short to avoid FBI traces]
Yours sincerely,
A person that would like to stay anonymous....
This law sweeps across with a broad stroke and that's bad legislation.
One problem is a matter of 'annoying' people. What is annoying varies from person to person.
On the one hand, this means that spammers face yet another law against them. So, spamming while in the U.S. is a really bad idea. I'm sorry, if your name is really Ivan Charles Wiener, then, ok, I guess you can continue to send me erectile dysfunction ads as I.C. Wiener. But Heywood Jablowmie had better look out!
My question then is a matter of whether or not posting anonymously on a blog is a problem. If you allow real anonymity and you aren't prepared to handle the system, well, you're a fool. But most blogging software takes care of that. And if you force people to register, problem solved.
The big problem is that 'recipient of communication' is undefined. So, if I have a blog, and I allow people to post anonymously and they don't annoy me, is it a problem if some politician visits my blog and sees that? The original author is anonymous. Granted, as the owner and effective publisher who is not anonymous, well, I would argue that it's now my problem, and too bad, and so on. But sites, like Slashdot, that allow anonymous and disavow ownership of any kind of the post, well, that could be a big problem, as then Slashdot is not committing a crime directly, but can be considered an accessory.
Hopefully, this thing will be given a reasonable smackdown, but I doubt it.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Is this an article or an opinion piece (ie. Slashdot via FoxNews)?
Yes. It's by Declan McCullagh. Declan is an advocacy journalist. A traditional journalist would have been less likely to know about annoy.com and Thomas's concurrence in McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission.
Declan runs the politech list, and writes for Cnet.
If I recall correctly, he was a student government leader at Carnegie-Mellon when a free-speech controvery happened there, and parlayed that into a job with Time magazine.
Slashdot readers may remember his interview with FEC commissioner Brad Smith, which set off a firestorm of bloggers versus the FEC.
He's also a photojournalist, visit his web page for photos of geeks.
His coverage suggests that Spectre, and the congress, have once again violated their oaths of office. That annoys me.
At majors.blogspot.com I have links to the 4 major cases that uphold the right to be anonymous and annoying. I litigate in this area, but not very effectively. I'd be willing to work with people who want to challenge this statute. - arbitrary aardvark.
Dude, can I chicken your orc?
Can I ask, shrub, why you insist on signing STUPID AND POINTLESS legislations, while other people are suffering 15 years of Identity theft? (And don't get me started on the no-fly blacklist)
Somebody get him out of the whitehouse, please.
Line. Item. Veto.
Offtopic? Offtopic?!
It's a JOKE people. One that involves the story. Gimme a break.
what with Microsoft censoring bloggers , Cisco helping the Chinese with their great firewall, Yahoo turning in chinese dissidents, arresting 14yo girls because they mentined they wished the potsu was dead
like it or not it seems like censorship is now the American way, its profitable too
So you can shake your tiny fist at their house?
Get over it. People have been dicks for all time. A stupid law is not going to change anything. Don't like comments like that, or this? Don't be on the internet, or grow a thicker skin.
Like anything posted on the web matters. Including this comment.
Besides, I think you need to put things in perspective. A random 'haha' on your LJ is nothing compared to what some kids get on their blogs from shitty little cliques.
That said, this law is dumb, for I guess I can now press charges against any idiot, including myself.
This is easy to take care of.
Anytime someone posts something bad about you, immediately call the police with full intent to press charges. After we waste enough of the government's time, it will either do the smart thing and revise the law, or the stupid thing and make it a felony.
Now personally I don't like it when people talk shit about me on my own blog, but I have the tools to remove their remarks thanks to the blog site. I surely don't need a law to protect me. The only way I could see it being useful is if some corporation decided they didn't like me and would engage in a smear campaign against my name on the websites I frequent. Then I would leverage this law (or libel..).
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Look at the hurricane katrina conspiracy for further evidence.
But just because some local yokel slides in a dumb amendment does not mean we should all jump off a cliff. Yes, we all know how great big business is. Tried calling Microsoft, Dell or T-Mobile support lately with even a simple question? I called the IRS a few days ago with a very complex and detailed question. I got a very detailed and thoughtful response within 24 hours that would have taken weeks from a tax attorney and cost me thousands. If US business could provide the level of service of the IRS our economy would rock. Every time I move it is the businesses that can't seem to get even a change of address right, but I've never had even the local utility district get it wrong. Sure, the current republican clowns in DC are control freaks, sack them and get back to a team that want to provide good services.
Well it just went past my house!
Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha ha!
Read any good sonnets lately?
The Sedition Act made it illegal to criticize the president or congress. This seems like it's so broad that "malicious anonymous posts" could be anything that criticizes the current administration. IE someone tries to attempt discourse on some right wing blog and the owner of the blog doesn't like it then they could throw them in jail. Scary stuff....
Monstar L
An employee my wife fired some time back took to the net for revenge, signing her up for all sorts of things, from life insurance quotes to porn-by-email. The employee also visited and logged into OUR web site, so when we found a few helpful places that forwarded us IP/timestamp info for the requests, we were able to cross-reference them to our logs and produce a fairly demonstrative bit of evidence for the police. But they claimed there was nothing they could do.
I think there's a place for legislation that prevents intentional harrassment, but if there's one thing you can count on, it's that legislation regarding the Internets will suck.
It should also be noted that every single one of his articles takes pot shots at repubs and especially the Bush admin, whether they are warranted or not. This one was no exception. The law is portrayed as being pushed through the congress by those tricky freedom hating republicans, even though it was approved unanimously.
As a regular reader of his it gets rather annoying and distracting and it diminishes the effectiveness of the arguments he tries to make.
Why do individual governments think they can regulate the internet in this manner? When you make spamming illegal in the US the spammers just move to Belize or China. Want to post a flame, just log into a remote server in another country and do it from there.
What a waste of time creating an illusion of a solution in this manner. The only people these laws would stop are those who are too clueless to circumvent them.
If we are going to try to regulate the net the only practical way would to use international treaties. Of course there will always be non-treaty countries where the rules would not apply.
What about messages of protest? The power to annoy is one of the foundations of activism. What does this say for free speech and civil liberties? Would such a law stick? I doubt it anyway.
This is a classic tactic, called "attaching a rider". It's also the legal equivalent of asking, "have you stopped beating your wife?"
John Kerry's famous "I voted for it before I voted against it" referred to something like this. What he meant was, "I voted for the weapons acquisition bill, but when it brought up again with a whole bunch of stupid riders attached to it I voted against it." Either way, it meant that his enemies could hit him for voting for it, or for voting against it, or for being flip-floppy. How's that for win-win-win?
He sure didn't help by compounding the insult by injuring himself with a silly phrasing, but it's a sign that politicians have very little faith in their constituents by being unwilling to put out the longer and more complicated version. And, given how effectively Kerry's statement was used against him, their lack of faith seems to be entirely justified.
Personally, I favor a parliamentary procedure called "splitting the motion", where a member can move to consider part of a bill separately from the rest. That way when a bill like this comes up a member can say, "I think we should consider the 'jail you for flaming' part of the budget bill separately from the actual frickin' budget," and let that part stand on its own if the motion passes.
But it would be impossible to convince Congress to change its rules to allow that, because the all-or-nothing nature of a bill is what lets people say, "I'll vote for your self-serving amendment if you'll vote for mine." All of those deals would fall apart of those two Congressmen couldn't force the rest of Congress to go along with them once they got a sufficiently large coalition to pass the amendment.
So basically, get used to it. Not a bill goes by without scores of these riders. Sometimes they're useful, like when John McCain threatened to attach a "no torture" rider to every bill until it passed. It's just the way Congress works, and enjoy your tour of the sausage factory.
I have to wonder if this law can be used (or is intended to be used) as part of a SLAPP strategy, also known as "strategic lawsuit against public participation." If a blogger posts a comment that's uncomplimentary about a company — and therefore annoying — then that unflattering remark now becomes a criminal matter. By stripping away anomynity, the law will definitely chill whistleblowing, compaints, and other comments that aggressive companies attempt to supress.
Do most law agencies know about usenet and what it (usually) does? given the cases from the RIAA/MPAA I would have thought that usenet would have been targeted at least once.
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
These types of stories we see over and over are clear symptoms of the crying need for a global, decentralized, free moderation system on the Internet. Basically from now on, there is always going to be a copious flood of junk data coming in from every direction, and we need to fashion new tools that allow us to discern what is good with a minimum of personal effort.
The concept behind PageRank propelled the Google search engine to number one. The simplicity of the algorithm and its democratic nature made it successful. It worked well when most web pages were constructed by humans.
Now, of course, the net has been overrun by link spam, link farms, blog spam, zombie networks, and email spam. Humans are still generating volumes of meaningful, valuable content, but machines have been spewing even larger volumes of pseudo-meaningful content designed to hijack the democratic principle that PageRank used to deliver relevant results in response to a search query.
The problem is that machines (and collaborative efforts by humans working with machines) can generate content that other machines do not recognize as garbage/spam. We can turn this around by allowing our machines to pay more attention to content that is generated or approved by entities that are verifiably human.
This is where the net is headed, and this is how we can mitigate the negative effects of the spam plague. Collaborative moderation and filtering will become the norm because the unfiltered net is a disaster.
We don't need new laws that outlaw spam. We need new algorithms that enable real people to subtly work together to help each other. Humans can easily discern good content from garbage. We just need to teach our computers how to pay more attention to us.
Consider the raw data that has been created by my writing this comment, and your reading it. You might assume that I'm a human being, and that the mind who wrote this article exists and is capable of discerning spam/garbage/misinformation from useful data.
But I could be a robot that just copied someone's article and pasted it in, claiming authorship. How do you tell the difference?
Ask your friends. If you're faced with a crowd of a billion people, all speaking their minds freely at once, you can filter out the junk and get to what's interesting if you just ignore what other people like you ignore, and pay attention to what people like you pay attention to. This can lead to groupthink unless you let some of the junk through randomly and deliberately, and that will require some tuning.
But one's personal view of the Internet is going to need to be filtered collaboratively. It must be decentralized and quickly adaptable.
Companies like Google are undoubtedly working on this. Wikipedia needs to pay attention too.
it's a blue bright blue Saturday hey hey
Good catch. My spelling goes downhill when my blood pressure goes up.
--MarkusQ
Strikes me as moderately stupid. I mean, threats and all, sure. Harassment, ok, I guess. Though I believe there are already recourses for these problems (I could be mistaken).
But "intent to annoy"? Isn't that what the Internet is? A giant, collective, intent-to-annoy?
(Moreover, isn't that why there are things like selective blocking/allowing for IMs, for blogs, for e-mail?)
This won't affect me, however! When I call someone a jerk, it's never with the intent to annoy.
It's with the intent to inform!
IMHO this could have good purposes, and here is why I say that.
I host a blog for my ex-brother in-law (brother of ex-wife). It's just a basic blog he uses to post pictures of fish he's caught. A week before Christmas he sent a greeting card to his son, whom his ex has not permitted him access to in over two (2) years, not even a phone call gets through. Just a day before Christmas he begins getting harrassing comments posted on his site. Not just one or two, like around 250, one after the other, mostly defametory in nature. He calls me for help and I spend some time looking up IPs and gathering ammo for him to take to a lawyer. This bill could actually help him present a valid case.
Free Beer!
Bush did have a descent or should we say plunge in his approval.
No, not quite. Just a few more years to go. Perhaps it's about 1981 now. The thought police are coming!
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
The spam thing was actually a big conspiracy. ;)
.
.
.
We were trying to drive all the spammers to Canada.
So you're that level 60 Night elf who keep murdering poor little orc at the cross roads!
Colosse.
So, if this comment is modded down -2 Troll, or even worse, Flamebait, Not only do I lose Karma, but Slashdot will automatically execute a FileFederalLawsuit script?
Good security is based upon reality and common sense. Common sense is a function of having common knowledge.
and fair elections.
spoonerize "magic trackpad"
The days if insightful conversation and serious thought on slashdot appear to have faded into memory.
Instead, we are treated to slanted articles posted here to induce more tired anti-government or anti-anything rhetoric.
Hardly ever does anyone try to think through an issue to determine if it is cause for concern or not. It is automatically assumed this is the government's way of stopping our 'free-speech', and the identical flaming posts commence mixed in by some attempted humor.
Has this site become nothing more than a running comedy attempt on articles?
People that claim to be intelligent should be ashamed to not consider both sides of an issue.
It's as if no one sees a benefit to this. All you hear are mock situations with no legal basis used to portray the invalidity of this law. For example, given a +5 interesting was
"...does that mean when you get a -1 Flamebait on slashdot, the authorities are dispatched? "
Yes.
Just like when i call someone and tell them their customer service sucks, or their company in general, i am carted off to jail because i made an abusive phone call.
Right.
Neither situation is what the law was intended to prevent. It is just sad that what could be an otherwise engaging discussion has turned yet again into a left-wing anti-government bash fest devoid of energy or real thought.
maybe it's now appropriate to rename the AnonymousCoward userid to Anonymous[appropriate word to instill fear and loathing]?
I'd use the word we're all thinking of, but I prefer to not get that door knock.
-from russia with love
-sue me
-i imagine FSB rolf'ing at the request for extradiction
And yet here we are, posting here and in all those articles MarkusQ referenced... free speech is alive and well, believe it or not, and people bitching about it not being free while they freely post their rants here are too oblivious to see the irony.
The fact that some people in some cases are able to express their views does not mean that "free speech is alive and well." The point of free speech is that everybody can do it, without recrimination.
-- MarkusQ
so... when there's low page count on a saturday and the slashdot editors post 'ask slashdot' articles about 'how do i use a mouse' on the front page in the hopes that everyone will flame them for being stupid... it's illegal now?
Sitting Walrus Blog
SEC. 113. PREVENTING CYBERSTALKING.
(a) In General- Paragraph (1) of section 223(h) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 223(h)(1)) is amended--
(1) in subparagraph (A), by striking `and' at the end;
(2) in subparagraph (B), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and'; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(C) in the case of subparagraph (C) of subsection (a)(1), includes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet (as such term is defined in section 1104 of the Internet Tax Freedom Act (47 U.S.C. 151 note)).'.
(b) Rule of Construction- This section and the amendment made by this section may not be construed to affect the meaning given the term `telecommunications device' in section 223(h)(1) of the Communications Act of 1934, as in effect before the date of the enactment of this section.
Relevant Comm. Act section:
TITLE 47 > CHAPTER 5 > SUBCHAPTER II > Part I > 223 Prev | Next
223. Obscene or harassing telephone calls in the District of Columbia or in interstate or foreign communications
Release date: 2005-03-17
(a) Prohibited acts generally
Whoever--
(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
(A) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
(ii) initiates the transmission of,
any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other communication which is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, or indecent, with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass another person;
Stop learning! Only you can prevent esoterrorism.
Maybe you could actually address the real point of this post?
He said:
You could certainly argue that this law in particular perhaps goes too far, but you're almost saying it's OK to harass people, until some company invents technology that you can purchase to stop harassment. That is just plain silly.
You said:
Fine. I'll pay $6 for a caller ID box and $24 a year for piece of mind. You want to pay for bureaucracy and red tape and non-effective unconstitutional legislation? You should pay your share of what you use, I'd like to bow out of it.
What does your response have to do with his comment? He is saying that your philosophy, as you phrased it, implies that you don't believe we should be protected from harassment unless there is a non-governmental way of doing it. You are not addressing his point that it is "just plain silly" to argue that the only allowed way to protect from harassment is through the market.
Now, it so happens that I agree with you that the DoJ has gone way beyond what the constitution allows, and that too many powers have bubbled up to the federal level. I even agree with you that the market is likely a better solution to harassing phone calls than legislation, although I think it is worth debating.
I do not agree that "the market" is the way to solve every problem, or even the problem of harassment in general.
I would have no problem with that in an EMAIL for in a blog, it is basically to send
all of us who say fuck bush to Guantano Bay or some other high security place.
Here is one case where I had an EMAIL that deserved to send the sender in a jail, at least
for a day. 2 years is a bit exagerated even for pricks like that.
I get a bit over 200 EMAILs from some asshole telling me that if he had been in charge
of the deportation of the Acadians, he would have done a much better job and goes
on to explain to me in discusting details how he would have killed my ancestors.
I couldn't have cared less if I had his address so I could have sent him a response.
I was eventually able to find out where he wrote from and had no problem convincing
his ISP to cancel his account. He was just as outraged as I was and he was no Cajun.
Case in point:
http://www.google.com/?q=Miserable+Failure
Sorry Sergei.
zork% mv *.asp
283 files eaten by a grue
where at least I know I'm free.
We are not at war.
Good catch. I keep forgetting that. I guess that's a good demonstration of how "the Big Lie" works; they keep repeating it and after awhile you start going along with it even though you know it's false.
--MarkusQ
I heard that C++ is the only real programming language and Java is for wimps. (sound of sirens approaching)
Usenet vanished today in a puff of illogic.
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
You're a fsck-head! Please notify the authorities, and we'll see if we can take this all the way to the supreme court.
Maybe GNAA will be considered a terrorist organisation now!
Signature.
That's because blogging is too democratic: many eyeballs can see the message written by anyone.
As such, it's uncontrollable, unlike traditional print media where certain articles can be delayed or cancelled altogether to keep them out of sight.
Therefore blogging has to be contained and controlled.
Control makes it possible to silence any dissenting voices or unwanted discussion.
The first steps toward that control have been taken.
I do not moderate.
People who don't have to deal with trolls/flamers/stalkers and are probably at least part time in one of those groups likely fear this law. People who try to get rid of trolls/flamers/stalkers will probably not see this is a bad thing at all.
Seeing as how the use of the word 'annoy' is troubling, because what's annoying to one person may not be annoying to someone else. I guess when we start flame wars from now on we need to use our real names. They should call this new law "No Guts, No Glory" or "Ballz Law".
He only signed it, he didn't come up with it, if anyone sux is the morons in senate that came up with the bill in the first place.
I read Slashdot for the headlines, because the headlines, unlike the articles, are usually original and never duplicated
There are existing laws against harassment, uttering threats, etc. Calling somebody continuously at 3am or to threaten their life really shouldn't be any different on a phone than in a public place - so really it shouldn't need special laws. Part of this is intent though, so online it would be a different scenario when I threaten to rip out your beating heart after you camp-spawn me for the 10th time...
Lets remember our government class, and recall that it needs to pass in congress first. Here is how it did that:4 02:@@@R
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:HR03
yes, 415-4 in the house, unanimous in the senate judiciary, and then unanimous in the senate. Jeez, Maxine Waters cosponsored the bill.
Your All Assholes!!!
I'd love to see the first case go to trial. It would be a complete circus.
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
"It's so convenient to have a system where everyone is a criminal" - A. Hitler
So, how does it feel all you libertarians who keep voting republican. Satisfied yet? Feel pleased now that you helped defeat those bleeding heart liberals in favour of "hands off" conservativsm?
I really have to go ahead an rant on that point. I fail to see that EVER being the case. Over the last decade or so I have watched everything get privatised/deregulated in Australia.
The bank got sold... bank fees went up. (the latest is a 50 cent fee for using internet banking)
The gas company got sold... the price of gas doubled.
The Airline got sold, prices went up AND the Australians were fired because jobs went overseas.
The milk companies got deregulated.... the price of milk quadripled.
Do none of you remember what Enron did to California? "If we trade electricity it will be cheaper for everyone" What a load of shit.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing. Those who count the votes decide everything" -- Josef Stalin
Congressinal authorization = declaration of war.
Happend in vietnam, kuwait, yugoslavia and iraq(ii).
Surprise! Now it is a crime to speak up without putting your head in a noose. I predict this will not survive any test in the courts - but I also suspect that it will be used to counter-annoy (vis-a-vis RIAA). Just another example of these "public servants" exploiting their power for their own gain.
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
But this law will probably have a "reasonable person clause" with it. Meaning, that harrasment or annoyance will be determined by whether or not a resonable person would consider the act harrasing or an annoyance.
Which brings me to why I replied to your reply. Saying that the Horde sucks won't get you arrested. Every reasonable person knows the Horde sucks.
For every -1 Flamebait that appears on Slashdot we should all file a federal lawsuit that must be investigated and tried. Sometimes you just have to prove that something is too stupid to be in the rule book. We'll see how long the justice system can withsatnd a very stupid law that can be invoked by the average citizen. Any takers on a template complaint form to save lawyer fees? :D
And just for clarification, I'm all for protection agains harrassment, but a law against making an anonymous message that annoys someone is ridiculous.
If you think SLASHDOT is fucked by this law, can you imagine what LiveJournal will have to go through? I'm sorry, but Slashdot comments are just stupid. Anonymous posts, pixels on a screen. LiveJournal is different, everyone knows each other personally. There are faces behind the fonts.
The filthy dramabombs that explode all over that site will now be handled in a court of law. I love it. I can just see a mighty judge, a symbol of american might and power, succumb to dealing with two gothy emo kids who insulted each other on LiveJournal.
Infact, watch a precedent get set thats not in our collective favour, and soon blogging becomes illegal because it helps propogate internet harrasment the way Grokster propogates copyright infringement. Don't say it won't happen. Don't say that the courts aren't that stupid. We all know that the US legal system has done some very, how should we say it, interesting things (before american patriots accuse me of singling out the US, we are talking about the US. Has Canada's legal system done some interesting things? Of course, but this is an american law, not a canadian or european one).
Oh, and heaven forbid that law enforcement officials ever dare look at Fark's or Something Awful's photoshop contests too.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
All these industries, when regulated, were also subsidized. By de-regulating them, the subsidies disappeared, so the end user of course pays more. But you'll find yourself paying less (in the form of taxes) if the subsidies were stopped. If you're not, that just means that government moved the subsidies to other markets.
Deregulation also must be complete instead of just a title to a law. Some "deregulation" attempts were actually just regulation modifications, such as Enron's case. I'm talking completely deregulation and complete desubsidization.
Look at all the flamming on certain newsgroups. Is that covered by Bush's new law? The vast majority of the posts on groups like triangle.general are profane name calling exchanges. Are the Feds going to appear on the front steps of the ones posting such messages?
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Riiiiight. LMAO! Show me the exact spot on the bill, please! Show me the link! No one is that stupid... well...maybe they are, but I'm still laughing.
--I gots 99 problems but a new machine ain't one!
AMD! Asus! Whoot! 6 years!
... so I am free to troll anybody. However, if I troll a US citizen on the web and start a flame war and then he or she replies me anything naughty, am I free to sue him or her?
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken
/chicken/chicken/chicken/chicken/chicken/chicken/c hicken/chicken/chicken/chicken/chicken/chicken!
Lot's of love!
-Your favorite Night Elf!
From TFA:
Please note that,once again, it was a conservative justice who championed freedom of speech. A true conservative is a friend of liberty; please don't oppose a supreme court nomination just because you disagree with the nominee on a single issue--on which he may have expressed an opinion decades ago. Once you're in the Supreme Court, you're untouchable and beholden to no one--and more often than not, that has brought out the best in the Justices, and they have grown to fill the office.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
This law is unenforceable, and it's likely the only enforcement this receives will be selective. Which is very, very bad.
Worse yet, the people this law most stands to benefit are politicians and their ilk.
Here's to seeing this law get seriously pwnt in court when it's challenged by the ACLU.
So is that what you kids are calling it these days?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Wow. That's dangerous.
No, that's natural selection in action!
And if the ofender lives outside the U.S.?
Oh, that's right, the law only punishes it's own citizens. Not everyone else in the world that does it.
DuZ DaT MeEn DaT aLL dA PeEps dAT TyPe Lyke DiS wILL B jaYled? ...God, I hope so.
No matter how hot a girl is - some guy somewhere is sick of her shit.
This shit is about giving "tools" to the various cognizant propaganda and enforcement agencies "werkin hard, dyin', strugglin' to fight againts evol-dooers an' ter-rists"... (which we as a nation and we as sleepy taxpayers did by not keeping tabs on our foreign policy and elected and SElected officials), "terrists" which we created, paid, trained, funded, shuttled around, encouraged, cajoled, and then dumped when the political winds changed. And, now we reap what we sew, as the saying goes. It so disgusting that this mess exists. Much of it only got worse when the main actors found each other diverging from their scripts, I suppose...
So, if one finds a site hated for its blind support of the cabal in power, and posts a scourge of a blog, then it gets flagged and forwarded. If it is especially condescending and scathing toward the current administration, and it happens to pick up readership before being censored "a-la-ms-like-in-China", then you'll find yourself in a sling of a mess.
If a site is popular, chances are it will by choice or by law NOT censor; it will either mod it low enough to make it be missed, or it will rally opposing views to make life painful for the poster.
But, the C/T side of me wonders if this is just another wasteful, oppressive, ACLU-rankling "tool" to "whip up public support" for this sitting/occupying prez.
(Disclaimer: "No Karma Bonus" selected intentionally to suppress this view, hehehe)
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Currently the internet is not trusted. I don't really know who you are and you don't know who I am and we can pester each other without really being able to do anything about it.
Total open internet doesn't work. That is clear from slashdot alone else why would we have moderation and bans? If you ever run a website you will quickly learn that you will need to secure your site from many attacks.
There is something about being anonymous that can bring out the worst in people and with the internet it doesn't matter how small a group it is, they still number in the millions because of the global reach. Or put another way I don't need to worry about some kid from Japan gatecrashing my Dutch LUG. That same kid however can easily try attacking the website and I can't grab him by the throath and show what happens to little punks.
So lets move to a totally un-anonymous internet where who you are is known. Post a troll on slashdot and be assured someone from your hometown will come by and teach you a lesson.
Nice idea no? No. Because for all the trolls and flamers and idiots and time wasters there are also those people who contribute stuff they can get in trouble for but we would really like to know. Oh they ain't many, every slashdot story has trolls versus only a handfull that have inside information BUT some people find that the trolls are worth it.
And yet should that mean anyone can do anything they want and not have to fear being punished for it? Saying that people should be able to harras, threathen or even annoy while hiding behind anonymity is al very good until you are at the receiving end.
I happen to know one of the people who claims to be one of the gnaa members. Yes he is as sad in real live as well but that is not the real funny thing. He sometimes gets "attacked" himself and then bitterly complains about how people are costing him bandwidth from a DOS (yeah a DOS not even a DDOS). A lot of people are for freedom but only if it is them being free, the moment someone else uses freedom against them it is time to get the law involved.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This says you are free to speak. Strictly speaking it does not say you do not have to face consequences of what you say. (Shouting fire in a crowded theather example) It certainly does not say you have the right do speak anonymous. The amendment was clearly not written by lawyers. Not good ones anyway.
Of course it also was written a long time ago when if you wanted to say something you had to either own a press or stand up in front of your audience. The tech to speak from another continent without ever having to show yourselve was unheard perhaps even undreamed of.
This law has a lot of nasty possibilities but as someone who has had to clean to many websites after a visit by a person with the intent to annoy I am torn in two. The majority of me knows this is going to lead to trouble and the other part of me has a list of IP's in his firewall that he would loved to have traced by the feds and their users put in a wooden chair with leather straps and a link to another kind of net.
Should at least make for some intresting bash.org posts when someone convinces an annoying kid they are about to be arrested for talking in caps.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If a crime was committed when someone criticizes a politician anonymously, the ISP would have to give out his info.
Because our rulers have a god-given right to side-step the actual issues and use ad hominem to defend themselves...
Please stop. I still haven't mentally recovered from reading that post in its enterity several years ago.
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
...just thinking that that damn ima_trool on the Yahoo current events board is in deep dookie. Cindybin is pissed.
I'm reporting all posters who... will now have a chilling effect on people.
The bit about "any interactive computer service" is the concerning part. Of course to make sense of this you would have to go back to the original text, Section 2261A of title 18. They make their changes in this fashion as to make it very difficult for lawmakers to read/understand the bill before they vote.
Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
Spam email annoys me. Spammers never use their real names or addresses. Therefore, under this new legislation, they will be facing those criminal penalties (including fines or up to 2 years in jail ... and I imagine that's per offense. 2 years in jail times a million recipients of a spam ... nice.)
So where do we need to send our complaints to have them reviewed under this new law?
Like any other internet legislation, this is only enforceable within the US. A good chunk of the annoyance comes from overseas. I'd guess most of those sexbots come from zombies, otherwise they'd be easy to ban. And zombies can be anywhere.
(I'd love to see a "percentage of machines vulnerable to old 'sploits, by country" ranking.)
I am the LAW! Plus a helmet that never comes off is a bonus for slashdotters. Not allowed to have sex is not a big deal either :P
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Most of you are looking at this from an individual perspective and you are grossly mistaken. How foolish you all are to think this law is to protect you! You the people! Hah! This administration doesn't do things for the people, they do them for big businesses with lots of funding to contribute to campaigns and with lobbyists who have big entertainment budgets. In other words corporations who are tired of trying to use ineffective civil law suits to stifle free speech about them. So this law is _not_ to give you power--it is to give corporations the power to criminalize product and corporate criticism on the internet. After all, civil suits are so darned expensive, but if a corporation can send a few people to jail, then that will have an immediate and severe chillng effect and squelch bad product reviews and negative comments about customer service and corporations. Don't believe me? Wait an see.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible to live without breaking laws."
-- from Atlas Shrugged
This is all very interesting reading. After reading much of what this is about, it's now obvious that this is yet another frivolous law put on the books without due regard to research, and forward thinking. If it's put to the test and discovered to be a fallocy, it will take an act of congress to get the thing removed.
My suspicions about congress are rather high right now in part because this and a few other esoteric laws are either proposed or being made into law all-the-while many Congress people are dumping campaign donations right and left in the event their names come up from that lobbiest person (name escapes me right now) when he begins to spill the beans.
I don't trust anything going on in Washington right now because we're in one of those times where a lot of change is afoot. We seem to have one to many people in office that just plain don't have a clue and that seems to be causing all the change.
Cheers
(Oh yeah;... go ahead and revoke my First Amendment free-speech rights... I dare ya!! I've broken no laws and after getting your charge overturned, you'd see the next big overturning of your job, and possibly your physical freedom!)
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
Is it just me or does this law not actually apply to the Internet in general?
I mean, read the definitions, and where it says an interactive computer service doesn't count, and then where it says an interactive computer service includes the Internet.
VOIP
Oooohhh ... sure hope THAT wasn't abusive. I think I hear sirens ...
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
Am I the only poster on here who thinks this law is a good thing?
Getting harrased online is no different than getting harrased offline. Getting anonymous insults on my blog everyday is the same as getting crank calls at night.
Why does everyone here want to protect the ability for people to bully other people online?
Back with the Signal 11 fiasco in earlier times on /. I sure would've enjoyed seeing federal law enacted. :)
Two out of three ain't bad. Work on the capitals though!
like when the president interrupts my favorite tv show to annoy sane people with is blabbering about osama, september the 11th, and various lies about about how spying on americans is legal. there are quite a tv trolls in fact. pretty much all the pundits.
I have to agree. Harrassment in any form, is harrassment. The original poster uses the telephone analogy. What about the US Postal Service? The same law applies to the letters you get. If you tell anyone to stop contacting you, and they continue, thats harrassement. And its not at 3 am, so it provides a better analogy. Free speech is needed, but when free speech become harmfull, its no longer free speech and should not be protected. Those on the internet who use blogs and other forms of communications, i.e. Usenet, to post harrassing messages, are confusing it with free speech.
"Your having a bad day when the voices in your head put you on hold"
Perhaps this is the legal vehicle to aid in the prosecution of electronic harassment. A growing trend with middle and high school kids is to create blogs/website/emails to harass fellow students.
I have seen some very vicious blog sites devoted to the defamation of a fellow student. Without the legal ammo, law enforcement has their hands tied as to the extent they can investigate and remove the content.
With the web, you can anonymously bully fellow students from the comforts of your own bedroom.
We need to weigh your right to flame someone with the rights of people to be protected from harassment.
What amazes me, more than anything, is that some people seem to feel the need to draw a line between the real world and the Internet. For example, are on-line auctions THAT different from real-life auctions? How about shopping carts?
First of all, everybody in the U.S. does have the right to freedom of speech. If someone's right has been infringed, please take it to the supreme court and I'm sure they'll agree. As I've said, it's usually the people that have cried the most about having their free speech denied that are talking the most about it. Ironic, isn't it?
But why without recrimination? Now you are adding words to right that the constitution guarantees you! You have no right to say anything you want about someone else without consequence? That's why you CAN'T yell "fire" in a crowded movie theater!
Let's take the example of the spoiled movie star or singer, for example; the one who has always been given a soapbox in the form of news programs desperate for viewers. So some guy thinks that because he's famous he can go on one of these shows and spout off whatever he wants. Then when people don't go see his next movie, or buy his next CD, or someone doesn't want to cast him in their next film, he claims his freedom of speech is being infringed! Wrong!
You also don't have the "right" to be heard. If I choose not to listen to you, or give you a forum, I'm not denying your right to speak freely. So again, if you're some movie star that's been making the rounds on talk shows and spouting off about some politician or another, and I don't agree with you, I don't have to have you on my show! Has your freedom of speech been infringed? No!
No one is saying you can't say whatever it is you want to say, I'm just saying that a) I don't have to give you a forum to say it, b) I don't have to listen, and c) there may be consequences.
Good example of someone who knows what free speech is about and stands up for his beliefs: Bono. Good example of when someone doesn't actually understand the concept of freedom of speech and cries because they may have suffered consequences: Dixie Chicks.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
More, Osama has been living in a cave, and I'm pretty sure he believes this is war, even if you don't.
I just wish the US government still believed in finding Osama and hadn't moved the vast majority of the troops elsewhere. We dropped the ball in Afghanistan and left before destroying him, and we'll likely see another domestic terrorist attack because of our leader's failure to finish the job.
The article is about President Bush signing a law making it a crime to post annoying material on a blog, which may be an unconstitutional violation of free speech. The story, in case you need it spelled out, isn't about "crank blogging" as you claim but about Bush's signing a law against it.
In this discussion, in what is arguably a blog people have been complaining about Bush, his treatment of constitutional issues in general and free speech in particular, but you claim it is an offtopic attempt to annoy.
What would you rather we talk about? How nice it is that big brother is going to protect us from annoying ideas? Would that be on-topic enough for you? Or maybe we should all gush about how nice it is that Bush just signs bills and never vetos anything?
--MarkusQ
I see lots of bitching and wringing of hands.
It don't see a BIT of the action necessary to deal with this crap.
Congresscritters can stick little gotchase in bills every day. If the ever get used it takes enormous effort, cost, and personal risk to get them struck down in courts. Ditto to get them repealed.
The way to nip this stuff in the bud is to make it COST the congresscritters.
I'm not talking about the ones who voted for the "must-pass bill" that was parisitized. They have a plausible excuse. I'm talking about the ones who ADDED THE OFFENDING LANGUAGE to the bill.
So where, in all this coverage and hand-wringing, is the LIST OF NAMES of the congressman or senator who PROPOSED THE AMENDMENT, and the LIST OF NAMES of the congressmen or senators who VOTED FOR THE AMENDMENT?
Don't like it? Dig out those names and publish them.
Then start a campaign in their district (which you can do from anywhere in the country) to get them bumped - in the next primary, and the next election, and the one after it, and the one after that, until they're gone. Or (fat chance) they submit, and get passed, a repeal of each of their own offending bills.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Actually, Canada has quite strict "Hate Crime" laws... and the language of the laws are so loose (and the concept in itself is so subjective), that virtually anyone could be accused of "Hate Speech" (There have been serious attempts to keep Al-Jazeera, Fox News, RAI [Italy's State TV Network similiar to the CBC] from being available in Canada by classifying them as "hate speech"... Even Don Cherry has in all seriousness been called a "Hate Criminal" by the BQ). So while yes, the U.S. government can't do anything to you about posting annoying messages, your own government would have the authority to do so (And, of course, you could always just post your message in some other country, defying your own government).
I think the real danger is, like you said, some sort of international treaty that would limit free speech. This isn't as outlandish as it might seem. Already the U.N. has approved a resolution, with almost unanimous support, that endorses the "right" of any nation to completly ban any sort of foriegn news, music, or entertainment under the guise of "protect national culture". It is only a short step from complete censorship of foriegn media (which has been approved by the U.N.), to complete censorship of domestic media.
Ouch.
While I agree that there would seem to be many unnecessarily restrictive elements, this will give people a leg to stand on when disputing text message bills with cell phone companies. I recently had to fully disable text messaging with my phone (or switch numbers) to avoid having to pay for prank messages. The ability to have the law pursue people will help dissuade against the practice and may encourage a change in messaging systems.
At some point, the decent folk at ColumbiaHouse and similar outfits, annoyed that their no-postage-necessary return envelopes were being used to throw their junk in their faces, took to printing on them in red letters something to the effect "if you try and send us stuff in this envelope anonymously, we're gonna get you".
I can assure you, the best way to get rid of dragons is to have one of your own.
Pres. George W Bush's lack of ethics has become so flagrant that it merits your complete attention. For instance, George presents one face to the public, a face that tells people what they want to hear. Then, in private, he devises new schemes to tell us how to live, what to say, what to think, what to know, and -- most importantly -- what not to know.
Not only have impetuous authoritarians decided to glorify their actions by dressing them up as moral and righteous prerogatives, but their witticisms are being debated as though they were actually reasonable. Given George's record of shady dealings, we can say that he has been known to say that his grievances enhance performance standards, productivity, and competitiveness. That notion is so hate-filled, I hardly know where to begin refuting it. I don't like to repeat myself, but the picture I am presenting need not be confined to George's announcements. It applies to everything he says and does. It is reasonable to infer that we can divide George's maneuvers into three categories: diabolic, indecent, and corrupt. George's collaborators have an almost identical mentality, as if they all had been cloned from a single vile prototype. That concept can be extended, mutatis mutandis, to the way that every time he utters or writes a statement that supports post-structuralism -- even indirectly -- it sends a message that one can understand the elements of a scientific theory only by reference to the social condition and personal histories of the scientists involved. I claim we mustn't let him make such statements, partly because some time ago, in the aftermath of his last volley of attacks, a group of disdainful slackers began to undermine liberty in the name of liberty, but primarily because if he is going to create a global workers plantation overseen by transnational corporations who have no more concern for the human rights of those who produce their products or services than George has for his supporters, then he should at least have the self-respect to remind himself of a few things: First, this is the precondition for my crusade against obtrusive, disruptive jingoism. And second, I am deliberately using colorful language in this post. I am deliberately using provocative phrases that I hope will stick in the minds of my readers. I do ensure, however, that my words are always appropriate and accurate and clearly explain how George claims that we have too much freedom. Predictably, he cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist.
I don't know whether or not you've ever been physically present at a public demonstration by George's foot soldiers, but let me tell you, they're pretty stolid. George contends that insidious loons have dramatically lower incidences of cancer, heart attacks, heart disease, and many other illnesses than the rest of us. Sounds rather filthy, doesn't it? Well, that's George for you. An armed revolt against him is morally justified. However, I feel that it is not yet strategically justified. Let's be honest here: You can unmistakably assume serious trouble is brewing when what I call brown-nosing oligarchs project a stream of domineering images of death, sex, disaster, material goods, celebrities, and other fixtures in a mock-Olympian firmament. If that fact hurts, get over it; it's called reality. And for another dose of reality, consider that to get even the simplest message into the consciousness of what I call superstitious, acrimonious drug lords, it has to be repeated at least 50 times. Now, I don't want to insult your intelligence by telling you the following 50 times, but George's satraps would sooner ally with evil than oppose it. That said, let me continue.
George should be responsible for his own actions. We can therefore extrapolate that George's perversions have experienced a considerable amount of evolution (or perhaps more accurately, genetic drift) over the past few weeks. They used to be simply ugly. Now, not only are they both unsophisticated and fatuitous, but they also serve as unequivocal
It is clear why all of you would be against this legislation. According to the article, this is also part of the "Violence Against Women Act"! Clearly the "Violence Against Women Act" is to protect women - Anyone who dares question any part of this law clearly has a problem with the government protecting women against violence! Why would the government put the clause in, if it wasn't to protect women!? Obviously, you are all part of some right-wing conspiracy to oppress women! I have read the "Handmaids Tale", I know what your agenda is!
I am going to be reporting you all to the government! Many people here are posting annoying things, using fake names! Clearly, you are all doing so to facilitate some sort of violence against women! Slashdot's days of being a secret haven of women haters will be over very quickly!
Please, think of the children... err, I mean think of the women!
Now, if we can only do something about those people who have a problem with patriotism, and so are against the Patriot act!
It will be selectively enforced, and used primarily by the strong and sneaky (politicians, corporations, the wealthy) against the weak and powerless (ordinary citizens).
E.g.: "Your Honor, we at Sony have traced this anonymous complaint about an alleged bug in our Playstation 3 to this individual, John Q. Public; we believe Mr. Public has seriously damaged our rights and devalued our intellectual property, and according to [law], he should be jailed for up to [x] years."
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
So if i put on my webpage in big bold letters "IMPEACH BUSH" and somehow it gets a lot of national attention, and i dont sign my name to it, i can be arrested and fined/imprisoned? sounds more and more like we are headed to a dictatorship. Who wants to bet that Bush ammends to the next patriot act renewal that presidents can extend their own terms while fighting a war on terrorism? Bush or his "advisors" (daddy) are raping the constitution and bill of rights almost daily.
I wonder if we can get George Bush or Rep Sensenbrenner, F. James, Jr., or whoever it is that tacked on this rider arrested under this law.
News of this went out over the internet, and the obvious intent of this rider was to annoy...
How cool would that be? A law - which the creation of - broke itself.
That ought to make the all of the United States Code implode.
Question everything
However they will do nothing for the kamikazee use of the comma!
As the OP has already said, his use of commas in the above is perfectly grammatically correct. Please mod parent down. Sorry guy, don't bash grammar if you don't know the rules.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
My door cringes in anticipation of the Gestapo's boots at dawn...
We should get legislation passed outlawing the practice of sneaking items like this into seemingly unrelated bills.
... is a law that allows posses to castrate those who comment spam blogs. I don't know if this law applies to comment spammers, but even if it does I'm going to bet that there is no castration provision.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
As passed, this article is false. Pull up the bill, go to the offending section 113, and actually read it. It doesn't even include the word annoy.
You are standing in an open server west of a blue house, with a boarded front door. There is an Exchange mailbox here.
It's still badly written.
Actually, Osama may not be such a problem anymore, if some sources are to be believed:
And, according to Iranians I trust, Osama bin Laden finally departed this world in mid-December. The al Qaeda leader died of kidney failure and was buried in Iran, where he had spent most of his time since the destruction of al Qaeda in Afghanistan. The Iranians who reported this note that this year's message in conjunction with the Muslim Haj came from his number two, Ayman al-Zawahiri, for the first time
http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen200601
Time will tell, of course.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Many famous musicians performed under pen names because of contract issues (one of the more famous being George Harrison with Roy Orbison under various names).
/I am a fan, just an example.
If you don't like their music, and downloaded it online... could you sue his estate?
This is clearly a violation of the constitution...WHERE THE FUCK ARE THE ACLU DO-GOODERS that are so fast to jump on any race/sex descrimination case? This is obviously a tool for economic harrasment as the poor can blog, but not defend themselves when lawyers are over $100/hr.
Libertarians support governements. Libertains simply believe that governments should be minimized. Libertarians believe that governments should only do what governments are supposed to do.
For example, I'm sure that the not-infrequent posting of names, phone number and email addresses in /. of silly people and organisations with the "let them know how you feel" tagline must seriously annoy the intended targets.
or could this be extended even further... "those pesky greenies are really annoying me (MegaCorp as a person) with thier internet activisim". Of course, the activists can't do anything because the annoying thing is in real life!
Doh! :-)
This article is getting picked up purely because it's salacious and slams Bush. Have you even bothered to read the legislation? Amazing how rapidly wrong, false, utterly false news gets propogated these days.
Read the Communications Act of 1934 and then read 113(c). The author of the article got it wrong.
n/t
Q: What did the comedian say to the crowd?
A: If I knew, this joke would be funny.
You fucking suck and I hope this annoys you.
(There's your first case, you can thank me later.)
(unless this gets modded funny...uh oh...)
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
This is silly: the law needs to start taking into account the qualitative differences between things like telephones, email inboxes, blogs, and IM accounts.
It's not silly, it's exactly what the U.S. deserves. The author seems to think that the things like this happen by mistake, and that the government needs 'technical guidance' to make the right decisions.
Does it occur to you guys that they know exactly what they're doing? That they're deliberately dismantling one of the few remaining open forums left standing? This is how democracy slowly erodes into fascism(or wal-mart), and despite what many of you may believe about the republican party, it exists to erode democracy(read protections for the little guy) to make life easier for the rich and powerful(the top 1%).
Any of you who support or voted for Bush, I hope you see exactly what you've been supporting by this signing. He's nothing but a morally bankrupt hand that signs bills for the rich and powerful at the expense of your hard earned (by previous generations) rights as citizens.
When are the thousands of political naive Slashdot readers going to wake up? I know you'd prefer to debug a circuit or write software but it's hard to do those things in jail! Yes politics is boring, but left alone the government will steal your cake! Aren't you getting frustrated reading about the US, Canada, Australia and even 'liberal' european countries serving the rights of their citizens to big business on a silver platter? We need to find a way to reverse this process!
The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
Incorrect. The rich end up paying less because of their large tax breaks, the poor end up paying more.
1. Lenny and Carl have an argument .45 in his hand
2. Lenny starts blogging about how stupid Carl is
3. Carl calls the cops, but the cops say there's nothing they can do
4. Carl shows up at Lenny's door with a
5. Carl shoots Lenny six times in the chest.
Are we, the state, at fault for not giving Carl a peaceful, legal means to solve his public humiliation?
Every post and comment ever made on Slashdot since this law went into action has been a great annoyance to me, therefore I declare everyone who posts and comments anywhere on *slashdot.* (* being a wildcard) illegally breaking this law and should be immidiately punished with 2 years of jailtime.
AND I MEAN IT!
only against you and me.
I think the average joe would be hard pressed to get any type of help by the man if thier blogg is being attacked.
This law exists for one reason and one reason only, so the man can screw the little guy some more.
Do you think if someone is annoying you on your blogg you can call the local police and they would spring into action to extridite the 14 year old kid from kansas or texas or whereever 1000 miles away puts him, nope but go ahead and criticize your local senator and you will be in for a big suprise.
"I couldn't have cared less if I had his address so I could have sent him a response."
This is the first time I've seen someone actually use "I couldn't care less" (rather than the appallingly nonsensical "I could care less") in well over a year. You are a shining beacon of hope in these times of grammatical darkness.
Move 'sig'. For great justice!
When do the Bush gulags start?
I think this new law, by constraining activity on an (esentially) non-invasive, non-real-time medium, is close to violating the 1st Amendment. But I'm not a US citizen, nor a law student, so I'm probably wrong.
Where is the line drawn between a comment like yours (reasonable) and someone spouting anti-american terrorism threats on a polititians personal blog (probably what the law is targetted to)? Can't the poly just delete the comment? Or even leave it there, if he's truely interested in what his constituents have to say? Like you say, it's not like commenters are calling in the middle of the night.
This latest move does demonstrate even more how (as I've said before) America is no longer "the land of the free". Maybe someone should write a new national anthem?“Our opponent is an alien starship packed with nuclear bombs. We have a protractor.” — Neal Stepnenso
THIS must be illegal now, eh?
Interesting post on cnet:
hidden aganda
Reader post by: R Me
Posted on: January 9, 2006, 12:42 PM PST
Story: Create an e-annoyance, go to jail
this is a direct act to be able to go after political blogs. Recent legislation failed to be able to regulate blogs under political laws so a round-about-way was devised. Slimey politicians will always make sure they have the legal right to use their money and contacts to their best advantage and the unconnected disadvantage. These gutter slime feel it is their manifest right by reason of election.
Yea, because you are taken away your right to speak.
kidding! kidding!!
Please don't arrest me.
Dont i have a right to call you a jerk in a public forum if i think you are?
Yes i know its not technically 'public' since the blog-space is paid for by an individual or company, bla bla bla, but you get my point.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
probably looks familiar to most Slashdot readers.
Just a year ago Bush was going all over the country exclaiming "Frivolous lawsuits are bad!!"
Now he signs a law that allows potentially millions of new frivolous lawsuits to begin getting filed?
Earth to the American Citizenry: IMPEACH YOUR HYPOCRITICAL OVERLORD, (now)
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
Is it me or does this start to have the appearance of the bill of rights
(at least for the US citizens) being erroded?
I guess its time to vote all the bums out (both parties). they have obviously
lost touch with the people.
Understanding is much like a 3-edged-sword. in this: there are always 2 sides and the truth.
In case it didn't sink in,... the original comment included you as well.
I'll see you all in he^h^hprison.
Friend: "The NIC is misconfigured..." Me: "No prob, I'll just telnet in and fix it." *Silence*
The problem is that, while the highly technically-literate people on Slashdot don't fear much in the way of online harassment (because they know what avenues they can take, how information can leak, and actually what a harasser can do), most people do not enjoy this situation. It's *alarming* to most people to get unknown IMs or emails -- they don't understand this Internet thing and what risks might be involved, and a law can at least make them feel better.
I kinda think that this is a bad idea too, but it's not grounded in a government conspiracy to take your rights away. I dislike it because it can't work. Trying to filter out "bad" content through legal means is essentially impossible.
Furthermore, I only want to see legal remedies if technical ones are impossible. Legal fixes are expensive, slow-to-react, potentially abusable, often screw the little guy over, and contribute to the masses of unnecessary litigation in the United States. If it's possible to resolve problems withour resorting to litigation, it should be done.
However, online trust is an area that is improving in leaps and bounds and is an incredibly exciting area to research. It's like Google all over again -- there is valuable information with which one can provide an essential service -- all one has to do is write the correct code to harvest and analyze that data. A technical fix to avoid stuff that you don't want to see isn't far-fetched at all.
I'd *much* rather see the federal government just back off and let the techies have motivation to produce technical fixes...
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
There have always been two basic forms of government: ones in which everything is forbidden except that which is permitted, and those where everything is permitted except that which is forbidden. Totalitarian states such as Russia and China are examples of the first ... the United States was, by design, an example of the latter. That may not last much longer: at the rate we're going in twenty years or so the United States may be indistinguishable, governmentally speaking, from any other fascist state. Some would say we're already there, and in many respects we are.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
Granted, there's serious question as to whether you could ever push something like this through the House or Senate. However, Minnesota has a fix.
Minnesota's state constitution prohibits the passage of laws that cover more than one subject. If a judge determines that a law contains unrelated bundled elements, he can throw them out
In 2004, this hit the news when Judge John Finley threw out, as unconstitutional, a rider regarding gun carry rights. The rider was attached to a natural resources bill.
This is a very good design. Basically, it provides strong incentive for the crafters of a bill to make it as focused as possible. If they don't, anyone out there can challenge it and shoot it down. I've yet to hear of any other remotely workable solution to riders yet.
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
I've read a bunch of Declan McCullagh's articles, mostly from Slashdot links. I have to say that he is one of the very few journalists out there who comes off as both technically knowledgeable and pretty accurate. Most tech writers are, well, pretty awful.
Also, he's notable in that he seems to stay ahead of the curve. Usually, when I read about a tech article in the paper or other media, it's months after I'm aware of the problem and the technical rammifications. In contrast, when I read a DM article, it's consistently the first place I've found out about the issue (to be fair, I often first learn about something through Slashdot, which links me to a DM article, so this may not be entirely fair to the other guys).
Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
These are the changes...
Don't just challenge this statute - challenge every time Congress passes some "must pass" legislation with riders that are totally unrelated to the main intent of the bill. In this case, a DoJ appropriations bill is no place to be sliding in legislation about anonymity on the Internet. The RealId rider that was attached to a "troops & tsunami victims" appropriation bill is another one. Wasn't that rider rejected twice as a standalone bill??
I hope the moderators have the common sense not to dupe it. :/
I've read (quickly) the report...
They asked for (a) and were given (b) and then went and did (a) anyway. That simply must be wrong and this dissenting judge is clearly wrong. Ihave no axe to grind, but his opinion appears to overrule the entire basis of getting a warrant.
J.
You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.
Do these libertarians believe in libertarian football where the teams do whatever they like to get to the end zone. How about libertarian basketball where players beat each other up in order to score.
Regulation of business is necessary in order to keep some businesses honest. This provides a fair market in which innovators can prosper instead of being crushed by established players.
Unfortunately, we're slipping back into "libetarian" mode and away from good ole' fashion rules of fair play (regulation).
-------- -------- Support Wesley Clark for president!!!
...never studied history. Enemey combatants can and will be detained without trial and this is not something with just the current administration, but with all wars from World War I on.
However, the enemey combatants are usually treated as POWs under conventions etc etc annd returned to the nation of origin after hostilities have cease.
However, the problem now is the definition of hostilities and enemey combatants not having host nations which we are at war with so in theory we won't have anyone to sign a peace treaty with and return the combatants to.
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Unconstitutional.
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.