Slashdot Mirror


More Trouble Expected When Egypt Comes Back Online

schliz writes "Net activists at Telecomix are preparing darknets, encryption, proxies and VPNs to protect Egyptians' online freedom when the Government-imposed Internet blackout ends. Today, Telecomix regarded Egypt as being on "the same level as North Korea and Burma in internet censorship" amid rumours that Egyptian phone lines were to be shut down. Analysts and the Internet Society have also warned of technical and business difficulties to come — including BGP churn and commercial fears of doing business in Egypt."

175 comments

  1. A Straw Vote! by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who's all in favor of modifying the constitutions of every Western country to read:

    "Any attempt by government to in any way censor or limit or shut down the Internet will lead to immediate execution of said members of the Executive and Legislature by having their heads repeatedly smashed in by a circa-1995 Cisco router."

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    1. Re:A Straw Vote! by Magic5Ball · · Score: 2

      Absolutely not; for similar reasons to why advocating political murder of JA and circumvention of due process are frowned upon.

      --
      There are 1.1... kinds of people.
    2. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why use a Cisco router when you can use an IBM Model M keyboard. Those are MADE to smash heads in!

    3. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not the judiciary?

    4. Re:A Straw Vote! by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      having their heads repeatedly smashed in by a circa-1995 Cisco router.

      We're gonna need a lot more circa-1995 cisco routers...

    5. Re:A Straw Vote! by Amorymeltzer · · Score: 1

      I think we can all agree that, in this enlightened day and age, using a router from 1995 would qualify as cruel and unusual punishment.

      --
      I live in constant fear of the Coming of the Red Spiders.
    6. Re:A Straw Vote! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Ah, but this would be an amendment to the constitution. It would simply the immediate and permanent elimination of any politician who tries to foil civil liberties. You would have them on record as either having introduced the bill or voting for it, or from the Executive end of things, passing the bill into law. That would be a matter of public record. Should be enough for the amendment to allow the splattering of their brains over the pavement.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    7. Re:A Straw Vote! by h00manist · · Score: 1

      "Any attempt by government to in any way censor or limit or shut down the Internet will lead to immediate execution of said members..."

      I vote for it. Including under "censor" the categories of copyright, trademarks, and defamation.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    8. Re:A Straw Vote! by Tharsman · · Score: 1

      Who's all in favor of modifying the constitutions of every Western country to read:

      "Any attempt by government to in any way censor or limit or shut down the Internet will lead to immediate execution of said members of the Executive and Legislature by having their heads repeatedly smashed in by a circa-1995 Cisco router."

      Sir, if you run for president, I'll vote for you.

    9. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> "Any attempt by government to in any way censor or limit or shut down the Internet will lead to immediate execution of said members of the Executive and Legislature by having their heads repeatedly smashed in by a circa-1995 Cisco router."

      In Soviet-America router crashes you?

    10. Re:A Straw Vote! by RavenLrD20k · · Score: 1

      ...for the Router, maybe.

    11. Re:A Straw Vote! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      add wellfleet and proteon and I'll be onboard with that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:A Straw Vote! by Suki+I · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Try that one against the Muslim Brotherhood/CAIR after they take over Egypt. If you think the government there was "mean" before, you just watch and see what a *mean* version of Iran is like. They don't beast you with routers and the AK-47 bullets are metal, not rubber.

    13. Re:A Straw Vote! by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      Can i see this on youtube please....i really want to see this....like really badly....can we also include all lower end state governors and city mayors while your at it?

    14. Re:A Straw Vote! by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2

      circumventionn of due process?

      did we do that 200+ yrs ago fighting england? we didn't like the way things were, we fought back and this included guns and violence.

      we look at it as a symbol of freedom.

      but now, you wont allow a new one if its NEEDED and called for?

      how sad. you have learned nothing from our history.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    15. Re:A Straw Vote! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. It should be broadcast. Why, I think it should be mandated that there be mash-ups to Rick Astley songs, to give the appropriate dignity to the execution of those that fear citizens that much.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    16. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I see what you did there. Nice try slipping in a proprietary hardware requirement. No deal.

      If I want to do it by dropping my old G4 Sawtooth doorstop on one of them, I'd better be able to.

      Open source, or nothing.

    17. Re:A Straw Vote! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      I'm all for it but the retards in charge deciding against freedom and the Internet is the same people writing the law/constitution. So.. I don't see how that will happen. Unless you Ciscocute them beforehand :)

      Isn't IBM what you want for some heavy iron though?

    18. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fine, they get their trial where the people must show that there was an attempt to shut down, censor, or limit the internet and that the person was at that time a member of the Legislative or executive branch. Then we smash their head in. If they can show a strong and substantive effort to prevent the damage to the internet, we could consider it a mitigating circumstance.

    19. Re:A Straw Vote! by Amouth · · Score: 1

      http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2004/Cisco_Routing_Timeline.pdf

      i don't think people give them credit for the 90's they had some interesting things for the time. (and still do)

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
    20. Re:A Straw Vote! by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm not in favor of that at all. It's a horrible idea. How dare you suggest doing such violence to circa-1995 Cisco routers!

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    21. Re:A Straw Vote! by G00F · · Score: 1

      You have my vote.

      Free people are people who can overthrow a government should it wish it. A tyrannical government is one that makes it impossible for the people to overthrow it.

      --
      The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive
    22. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hell yeah! it's not perfect legislation but we can ramrod it through congress and force it on the american people anyway. we can always come back and fix in mistakes in it. let's call it the ObamaNet amendment!

    23. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. And when did you first know that you could tell the future?

    24. Re:A Straw Vote! by Caerdwyn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting. And when did you first know that you could tell the future?

      On the day we learned to study the past.

      --
      Everybody gets what the majority deserves.
    25. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting. And when did you first know that you could tell the future?

      Who needs to tell the future in that part of the world when the past is in an infinite loop?

    26. Re:A Straw Vote! by abbynormal+brain · · Score: 1

      You're gonna need 2!

      --
      L'esperienza de questa dolce vita (The experience of this sweet life) - Dante Alighieri, The Divine Comedy
    27. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So it takes messing with your internet to get you fired up.

      Perhaps it would be easier to just pay attention more and not vote the asshats into office in the first place?

      Perhaps death and physical harm is not what's needed but a recall option to which any politician can be removed from office upon a certain set of criteria and be barred from serving office for a set amount of time would be more appropriate. At least then you wouldn't have a mess created by a governor who got thrown out just to get reelected when the mess got worse and the incumbent reached a term limit.

    28. Re:A Straw Vote! by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Copyrights give creative people a reason to do what they do. Writers, musicians, artists, etc. need to eat, too.

      Trademarks protect the consumer as much as the business. Without trademarks what stops somebody from selling bottles of piss and marketing it as Mountain Dew?

      Defamation completely throws me for a loop. You have a problem with people suing other people for making up lies about them?

    29. Re:A Straw Vote! by dissy · · Score: 1, Funny

      having their heads repeatedly smashed in by a circa-1995 Cisco router.

      We're gonna need a lot more circa-1995 cisco routers...

      That's cool, Sprint's got you covered.

    30. Re:A Straw Vote! by russotto · · Score: 1

      Copyrights give creative people a reason to do what they do. Writers, musicians, artists, etc. need to eat, too.

      Trademarks protect the consumer as much as the business. Without trademarks what stops somebody from selling bottles of piss and marketing it as Mountain Dew?

      Defamation completely throws me for a loop. You have a problem with people suing other people for making up lies about them?

      You're considering the advertisement for these things rather than reality. In reality, copyrights are used to _shut down_ creative people for using the wrong three notes, or for writing the wrong computer program. Trademarks are used to remove words from the language (e.g. "monster") or to quell criticism. Defamation law is also used to quell criticism, e.g. trade libel claims against negative reviewers.

    31. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      You must admit, a political attempt to disrupt the speech of the people is a rather serious threat to the Constitution.

      I like many many others do try to avoid electing asshats, but it seems that mostly asshats are running and the media filters most non-asshats out of the debates.

      Honestly, the death penalty is a bit much, and there are a lot more things that should get a politician sanctioned. For one, I would like a 3 strikes (or perhaps 2) law barring anyone from office if they vote in favor of any legislation that is later narrowed or struck down as unconstitutional. If they either know so little about the Constitution or hold it in such disdain, they are unfit to make laws.

    32. Re:A Straw Vote! by skarphace · · Score: 2

      It would simply the immediate and permanent elimination of any politician who tries to foil civil liberties

      Oh cool, defend civil liberties by taking people's civil rights. Great solution, dude.

      --
      Bullish Machine Tzar
    33. Re:A Straw Vote! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      You didn't think this through, obviously. That router can be put to better uses, using it to bludgeon that heads with it is a horrible waste of valuable resources (at least compared to the head).

      Use a stone for the operation suggested.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    34. Re:A Straw Vote! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because it's already way, way too late to do anything when these guys are involved.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:A Straw Vote! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      ...Rick Astley songs performed by Weird Al.

      If you want dignity, go all the way.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:A Straw Vote! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Yes, but IBM hardware tends to be expensive and cost more than the heads being smashed are worth.

      It's still a capitalist world, comrade, just because it's head smashing time doesn't mean that we can forgo the principles this country was built on.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    37. Re:A Straw Vote! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Hmm... but it has become de facto impossible to overthrow the government with nonviolent means. Does that mean that violence is justified?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    38. Re:A Straw Vote! by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Perhaps it would be easier to just pay attention more and not vote the asshats into office in the first place?

      Oh, I do. The millions of other people residing in this country do not, however, despite my attempts to convince ones within my reach otherwise.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    39. Re:A Straw Vote! by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Get all your prisoners chopping rocks :)

      http://www.asterix.co.nz/mistakes/belgium/obelix.jpg

    40. Re:A Straw Vote! by Dan541 · · Score: 1

      I second that motion.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    41. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, I wouldn't abuse a router like that. But seriously, the fact that the government shut down public communications shows what kind of government they have. The guy in charge has been in charge for 30 years. Where I live (Canada) I hate any government that's been in for 8-10 years. Its like there is a window in front of the guys in charge, and they do their best for whoever they see in the window. At first the window is opaque, and they see the people, but slowly over time, the window becomes a mirror (but they still do their best for whoever they see in the window). I've hated parties on both the left and right (and then after 8-10 years, they have to go). The guy in charge in Egypt has been there 30 years. He's 82 years old. Before taking over, he was vice president for 5 years. Before that he was in charge of the Air Force there for about 3 years. He's been in charge for too long. He should have retired about 17 years ago. As for the internet, I'm waiting (and I don't know if we will ever see it, every government is power-trippy), but I'm waiting for 802.11s. 802.11s is decentralized. If its solar powered with batteries, then its always on. "What about the national kill switch" you ask. I reply: there is none. "What about centralized command and control" you ask. There is none, I reply. Its an ad-hoc mesh network. If it was available 5 years ago, no one would be talking about how Egypt is 'down' now. People want it, but the government is nervous. Read my previous line about governments wanting centralized power and control.

    42. Re:A Straw Vote! by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but now, you wont allow a new one if its NEEDED and called for?

      There's a difference between a revolution (which you seem to be advocating) which replaces the goverment, and enshrining circumvention of due process and political murder into an existing constitution.
       

      how sad. you have learned nothing from our history.

      People in glass houses should refrain from throwing stones.

    43. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You must admit, a political attempt to disrupt the speech of the people is a rather serious threat to the Constitution.

      Not really. I don't see the constitution protecting all forms of speech. I'll skip past the entire fire in crowded movie theater stigma seeing how the nature of the alarm and panic is lost on the safer modern theaters. But how about when someone consistently threatens and berates someone, perhaps even when they are a witness or victim to a crime and the speech is an attempt to coerce them into not aiding the legitimate prosecution of that crime. Or how about someone who murders a family then becomes rich from selling books and the rights to movies about that murder. How about the speech of someone who is actively attempting to violently overthrow the government to impose a dictatorship or something similar. and that's without getting into disgusting things like the promotion of child porn and so on.

      I don't really see all speech as protected speech under the constitution. I see the majority of it just as that, but there are areas in which there is simply no justification for putting up with the harm or potential harm it could cause.

      I like many many others do try to avoid electing asshats, but it seems that mostly asshats are running and the media filters most non-asshats out of the debates.

      Truthfully, in American politics, we havn't voted for the best guy or non-asshat in a long time. We have been on either a damage control mission or a give me mission and sometimes both. We are selecting politicians based around what they will do for me, or what they won't do for them. It's not leaders who are for the people, it's leaders who are for me and not them. The reason why the media filters some of them is largely due to the fact they attract more people who are just a subset of the above but think differently as to what they want. In recent times, it's because there was no real expectation of policy too. Take Ron Paul for instance, No matter what you think about him, you can't deny that people on the internet pushing him as a presidential candidate in 2004 laid claims to him doing so many things or supporting them, that is was easy to enter one site and read contradicting claims without digging very deep at all. Now that may be more of a sign of his supporters then him, but it's a sign of no real expectation of policy.

      Honestly, the death penalty is a bit much, and there are a lot more things that should get a politician sanctioned. For one, I would like a 3 strikes (or perhaps 2) law barring anyone from office if they vote in favor of any legislation that is later narrowed or struck down as unconstitutional. If they either know so little about the Constitution or hold it in such disdain, they are unfit to make laws.

      I would agree if we didn't have the thread of judicial activism around. And no, I'm not talking about the we read the constitution and my side lost activist, I'm talking about the entire "we will create a right where one didn't exist" activism like the California supreme court did to defeat the voter approved gay marriage ban. If you read their argument on over turning it, you will see that they didn't cite law or constitutional issues, they cited fairness and other things that had nothing to do with the law or constitutionality.

      With that in the system, you would have the problem of people who actually do know the constitution being barred from office because of politics and not the actual unconstitutionality of any law. Look at the recent health care legislation that has been ruled unconstitutional by two courts now. One side is claiming judicial activism while another side is claiming victory. What if it's both?

    44. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It's much more fundamental than that.

      The freedom of speech is nothing compared to freedom of doing business.

      You see, when you are free to speak, but not to do business, that means you can be left poor, with no upward mobility, but you can complain about it all you want without (supposedly) consequences from the government.

      But if you are free to do business, then you have ability to provide for yourself, provide for your needs and this means you have at minimum a way of surviving and hopefully even having an ability to move up in the economy. Society that does not take away ability of people to move up in the economic sense will eventually gain the freedom of speech that it needs.

      It's much harder to gain freedom of doing business if you don't have that freedom, and it's much more crucial than other freedoms as well.

      Freedoms on the Internet fall under the same principles. Today the Internet is not only for pure speech communications, but it is also a way to connect people together for other reasons - like creating business connections. These connections are not just ephemeral, they really have such an impact, they can make or break your entire business.

      Government getting ability to shutdown the Internet does not just gain ability to stop your free speech. It gets ability to prevent you from doing business and that means it gets ability to prevent you from making a living.

      Realize that this is the biggest threat that government poses at this point - preventing you from living your life, making your own plans, building your own future, because the government has a plan for you, and in THAT plan you have no future of your own.

    45. Re:A Straw Vote! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      If the government doesn't ban your speech, but smashes every printing press, cuts every phone line and blocks every highway, well yes, you're technically not be censored in that you're not being imprisoned if you say something they don't like, but they've damned well blocked your capacity for mass dissemination, which is almost a kind of meta-censorship. Quite frankly, I would like to threat the Internet like a printing press, and any politician, bureaucrat or judge who in any way impinges on mass dissemination is immediately taken out and beaten to death with a Cisco router. I want them all so absolutely terrified of even pondering the thought of using "kill switches" that they behave themselves. A sort of reverse tyranny, where the populace says "We let our leaders live as long as they never ever ever ever try to muck with our liberties."

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    46. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      wouldn't that be the day. No, they set up federal banks so they can print money and buy you out with that inflation of currency, which eventually allows the gov't to grow in size regardless of how the economy is doing and eventually it kills the economy. But you see, they buy the people out with that short sweet deal, where some people get something for nothing, some people who come right after the first set of people who get something for nothing get a little less of that 'something' for a little more of that 'nothing' and eventually nobody can get anything for anything, but hey, those people who set it up are long gone and now nobody wants to admit that their long gone relatives fucked it up for the great-grand children.

      Basically what I am saying is that Jefferson was right about that Tree of Liberty and the blood thing.

    47. Re:A Straw Vote! by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      slaves got all their rights by taking one from the slave holders
      like wise only one person can be completely free on earth at a time and they would be the world dictor
      ur peace of mind that murders will be punished if they kill u COST THEM THEIR RIGHTS HOW DARE U

      --
      warning pointless sig
    48. Re:A Straw Vote! by Teancum · · Score: 2

      "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."

      I think the details and principles are there, although I do like the idea of specific legislation that somehow makes it a criminal offense for a government official to be specifically prosecuted for censorship in violation of these principles. It shouldn't matter if you are communicating via paper, newsprint, broadcast television, computer networks, pigeons, or from a soap box. Speech is speech and censorship is generally a stupid thing, especially if applies to ordinary citizens in general and prohibits somebody from acting.

      Just wondering.... while it is curious that everybody is complaining about Mubarak here, does this apply to any freedoms that Julian Assange should enjoy too?

    49. Re:A Straw Vote! by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      The problem is that there are no meaningful consequences, and because it can take considerable effort to defend liberties against attack by the legislative or executive branches (far more effort than often goes into the attack itself), there should be an amendment that creates severe consequences for violating the Bill of Rights.

      That's where bashing their brains in with a Cisco router comes into play. I frankly think that legislators and the executive ought to be in terror for their very lives at the thought of something like an Internet "kill switch". I think they should piss their pants if some dumbass aide comes up to them and says "Y'know, Barry, this might be a durned good idea." I think they should have nightmares about the consequences. What I don't think they should have is months or even years before the courts can turf their ill-aimed legislation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    50. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      I'm sure we could craft a law that takes into account such things as the classic yelling fire in a movie house or fighting words. It's all theoretical anyway since none of the asshats in office are going to vote in a law that will push them out.

      Truthfully, in American politics, we havn't voted for the best guy or non-asshat in a long time. We

      When you can't get something good, you try to make do to the extent that you can.

      I would agree if we didn't have the thread of judicial activism around. And no, I'm not talking about the we read the constitution and my side lost activist, I'm talking about the entire "we will create a right where one didn't exist" activism like the California supreme court did to defeat the voter approved gay marriage ban. If you read their argument on over turning it, you will see that they didn't cite law or constitutional issues, they cited fairness and other things that had nothing to do with the law or constitutionality.

      You know the Constitution is explicitly NOT an exhaustive list of rights, yes? Fairness is part of the foundation of law. Without it, there can be no justice. Of course, since it was a referendum no legislator would have suffered for that decision. Nevertheless, those issues are why I said a 3 strikes law. Anyone could mess up once. Another strike because anyone could be on the wrong side of judicial activism once. By the third time, they're out of excuses.

    51. Re:A Straw Vote! by darkpixel2k · · Score: 1

      slaves got all their rights by taking one from the slave holders like wise only one person can be completely free on earth at a time and they would be the world dictor ur peace of mind that murders will be punished if they kill u COST THEM THEIR RIGHTS HOW DARE U

      That blob of English reads about as well as alphabet soup...

      --
      There's no place like ::1 (I've completed my transition to IPv6)
    52. Re:A Straw Vote! by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      You see, when you are free to speak, but not to do business, that means you can be left poor, with no upward mobility, but you can complain about it all you want without (supposedly) consequences from the government.

      But if you are free to do business, then you have ability to provide for yourself, provide for your needs and this means you have at minimum a way of surviving and hopefully even having an ability to move up in the economy.

      Congratulations, you have quite concisely summed up the present state ideology of People's Republic of China.

    53. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Clearly. But I also said that in an improving economy via people being able to do business and have upward mobility, the social structure will also be modified towards accepting more of other types of freedoms, it's inevitable.

      Just like in the 19 century USA, the increase in wealth led to people having more freedoms and accepting of others having more freedoms, this will also happen in a wealthier China, with which I congratulate them.

    54. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.

      Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.

      China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.

      I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.

    55. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I don't understand what's happening, /. is eating up my comments and not showing them.
      ---
      In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.

      Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.

      China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.

      I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
      --

    56. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.

      Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.

      China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.

      I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
      --

    57. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, we can file that along with the millions of other "....on the internet!" laws.

      How about simply the same sort of thing but that says "Any attempt by government to in any way violate the constitution will lead to immediate execution of said members of the Executive and Legislative bodies"?

    58. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never met a creative person that required any reason to do what they do - in fact they can't stop themselves from doing creative things.

      I'm not one of them, I like to spend my off-time lounging around and doing very little - but at least 2 of my colleagues spend their off-time writing songs, making video's and doing stand-up/musical comedy routines. They don't make a lot of money from it (albums and CD's are reasonably pried and sell relatively well - but it's the gigs that pay), but the money is a secondary concern. When they get an idea in their heads they just can't wait to try it out and even better, to share it with everyone they meet. They are a fucking inspiration and I just wish I had some better idea's to offer them myself (I've provided one or two suggestions that were used - but only after significant modification on their part).

      But copyrights, patents and trademarks have done nothing but hold these guys back - thankfully the exception for parody gets them out of most jams - but it's been a close call or two, and not everyone involved was so lucky.

      You want to improve creativity in the general public - give them some more free time - that's all they need: Time. Patents and copyrights do nothing but protect the lazy (like me) who get one good idea and milk it for everything they can get. When really we should be passing these idea's up the line to be turned into something truly beautiful which can be enjoyed by all.

    59. Re:A Straw Vote! by flyneye · · Score: 1

      No! There are still plenty of heavy 486s and CRT monitors moldering in closets. Stone them!

      Seriously though these guys have got the pyramids, the good ones anyway.
      Isn't this the same Camelbilly religion that strafed the Buddahs with jet fighters?!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    60. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      /. is not posting my comments... 3 or 4 comments eaten by the /. monster ...

      In 19 century USA became the wealthiest country in the world by first: getting credit to build factories and second: becoming the largest producer and exporter of consumer goods.

      Eventually this wealth allowed USA to gain more freedoms, which it didn't provide to all of its citizens. It was first of all the wealth that allowed the children to stop working, it was the wealth, that freed women from being baby making machines. This even can be said about freeing people from being slaves (though it really happened earlier in 18 century as society became less tolerant of that) but having more wealth allowed the former-slaves to become their own masters really, even having their own businesses.

      China is moving in the right direction, as they become more productive they have more wealth and it will eventually provide them with more freedoms.

      I also believe that the converse is true, as Western nations (US, UK, etc.etc.) become less wealthy there will be fewer and fewer freedoms for the citizens of those countries, who will accept fewer and fewer freedoms in exchange probably for something, like government not beating them into submission and giving them some daily food rations.
      --

    61. Re:A Straw Vote! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      Yep, you've swallowed the US argument hook, line and sinker.. Well done!

      (It's why the US originally backed Saddam Hussein, on the basis that because he was anti-Iran, he must be a Good Thing. We've seen how well that panned out).

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    62. Re:A Straw Vote! by tehcyder · · Score: 1
      I can't tell if you're ridiculing the OP's argument by using the reductio ad absurdum method, or whether you are serious, but insane.

      As this is slashdot, sadly the later is more likely.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    63. Re:A Straw Vote! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You're considering the advertisement for these things rather than reality. In reality, copyrights are used to _shut down_ creative people for using the wrong three notes, or for writing the wrong computer program. Trademarks are used to remove words from the language (e.g. "monster") or to quell criticism. Defamation law is also used to quell criticism, e.g. trade libel claims against negative reviewers.

      Copyright is not worth arguing about with the zealots here on slashdot, but if you abolished trademark and defamation laws, all you would do is give the richest and most powerful corporations even more freedom to ride roughshod over competitors and consumers alike.

      Think about it, Microsoft could saturate the market with lying adverts trashing Linux as much as they could afford, and even poison the well by releasing crappy products and calling them Linux with no comeback whatsoever.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    64. Re:A Straw Vote! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      How about "any attempt to propose execution as a suitable punishment for non-capital offences shall automatically mark the proposer as criminally insane and liable to permanent incarceration in a secure establishment"?

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    65. Re:A Straw Vote! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Hmm... but it has become de facto impossible to overthrow the government with nonviolent means. Does that mean that violence is justified?

      What I really, really love is that the very same people who advocate armed/violent overthrow of the US government for daring to tax them/limit their access to Nazi propaganda are the same ones who criticise Lenin and Mao for using violence to overthrow genuinely anti-democratic systems.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    66. Re:A Straw Vote! by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      Government getting ability to shutdown the Internet does not just gain ability to stop your free speech. It gets ability to prevent you from doing business and that means it gets ability to prevent you from making a living.

      You don't need the fucking internet to do business, you utter moron.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    67. Re:A Straw Vote! by slackbheep · · Score: 1

      What is this I don't even

    68. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      /. is not posting my comments... 3 or 4 comments eaten by the /. monster ...

      Oh, like the comment from you just of which I've just read 3 or 4 copies in succession? *rolls eyes*

    69. Re:A Straw Vote! by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Yes, what you just read, and what was posted at
      04:27
      04:39
      04:41
      04:52
      07:53

      None of which were appearing until after the last comment was posted, all of them initially eaten by the /. monster.

    70. Re:A Straw Vote! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I respectively could not support such a law. (Mostly because it's technically flawed as there would not be enough Cisco routers...).

      BTW, how many responses seem to be taking this seriously?,

    71. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I'm sure we could craft a law that takes into account such things as the classic yelling fire in a movie house or fighting words. It's all theoretical anyway since none of the asshats in office are going to vote in a law that will push them out.

      Agreed!

      When you can't get something good, you try to make do to the extent that you can.

      Yes, I understand that. However, I was more trying to point out that more then voting for the right guy was going to be needed. Unfortunately, I don't have an answer to that either.

      You know the Constitution is explicitly NOT an exhaustive list of rights, yes?

      It is but not in the sense you probably are thinking. The constitution is an exhausted list of rights the federal government has over the people and it even shows which rights of the state or the people specifically cannot be revoked. The constitution doesn't give anyone but government rights. The best it does for citizens is list specific rights the government isn't supposed to be allowed to intrude on. The rights held by the citizens are already there.

      Fairness is part of the foundation of law. Without it, there can be no justice.

      No really in practice. Take a fired ex employee who is starving because among other things, the company illegally blackballed him in his job searches. So this guy robs one of the stores he worked at and takes enough money to eat on for a month. He's still a thief and still subject to a law he violated when normally, he could have just got another job and got on with his life. We as a society, typically ignore fairness for the explicit discouragement of behavior. Now a crafty lawyer might be able to get that hypothetical guy off by using a necessity defense and claiming the company was the means to drive him there, but it's a gamble. Another example might be, you borrow a friends car, his insurance or registration is lapsed and you get the ticket for it. By most orders of fairness, the owner of the car should be accountable for that, but in most jurisdictions, it will be whoever was driving when it happened.

      So fairness in a practical sense isn't really followed. Instead, there is a defined rule on what fairness actually is when being prosecuted. Unfortunately, the same people who make the laws, are typically the same people who define this fairness to the extent the constitutions will allow.

      Nevertheless, those issues are why I said a 3 strikes law. Anyone could mess up once. Another strike because anyone could be on the wrong side of judicial activism once. By the third time, they're out of excuses.

      I don't disagree with you, I just do not see how you can entirely escape the judicial activism. It's bad now, but it's not really all that common. Wait until it can be used as a weapon to remove your political opponent from office. Then most every decision will have something based around it for the purpose of politics.

    72. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Fairness may not be part of the law in practice (for that matter, the right to an attorney, due process, and many other things are constructively denied), but it is there at least in principle. I certainly won't fault the one judge who remembers that once in a while nor would I decry it as activism.

      I just do not see how you can entirely escape the judicial activism.

      You don't entirely escape, unfortunately. However, if the various state superior courts or federal Supreme court get too far out of hand (especially if they start abusing their power in personal vendettas), there are procedures for impeachment. Surely toying with the meaning of the Constitution for personal political gain would fall somewhere under "High crimes and misdemeanors".

    73. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Fairness may not be part of the law in practice (for that matter, the right to an attorney, due process, and many other things are constructively denied), but it is there at least in principle. I certainly won't fault the one judge who remembers that once in a while nor would I decry it as activism.

      I wouldn't fault them necessarily either but I also don't think I would call it judicial activism. Perhaps some cases might border that line.

      You don't entirely escape, unfortunately. However, if the various state superior courts or federal Supreme court get too far out of hand (especially if they start abusing their power in personal vendettas), there are procedures for impeachment. Surely toying with the meaning of the Constitution for personal political gain would fall somewhere under "High crimes and misdemeanors".

      And the spike on the tracks derailing that train is who does the impeachments. Currently, it's the politicians (at least on the federal level) who would be appointing biased political cronies in the first place.

      In the scenario laid out, it would literally be the fox guarding the hen house. Not too many people ever get impeached from office for doing something that self appointed majority agrees with.

      In a perfect world, I would agree with you. But then again, we wouldn't have judicial activism or politicians who do not comprehend the constitution either.

    74. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't fault them necessarily either but I also don't think I would call it judicial activism. Perhaps some cases might border that line.

      But you did exactly that:

      I would agree if we didn't have the thread of judicial activism around. And no, I'm not talking about the we read the constitution and my side lost activist, I'm talking about the entire "we will create a right where one didn't exist" activism like the California supreme court did to defeat the voter approved gay marriage ban. If you read their argument on over turning it, you will see that they didn't cite law or constitutional issues, they cited fairness and other things that had nothing to do with the law or constitutionality.

      For the rest, we haven't yet devolved into a one party system. The justices will be mindful that the legislators they strike out against today may be joined by others tomorrow (since they can't hand them all three strikes with a single ruling) and impeach them. Likewise the legislators will not want to excessively antagonize the justices. They can't impeach them all.

    75. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      But you did exactly that:

      I thought you were talking about fairness in the other things I mentioned like going light on the exemployee who stole from the company after not being able to make a living due to crap the company did. And yes, the california court case is completely different then that. They created law that was completely contrary to both existing law and the will of the people.

      Furthermore, there is no fairness argument in regard to gay marriage. Anyone is capable of marrying someone of the opposite sex once they reach the age of consent and consent from both parties is given. Gays were not/are not denied that at all. They simply chose to not participate and then demanded a new right that didn't exist even though its similar to marriage.

      And before you pick up on love and all the other horseshit associated with extra rights for gays, the law doesn't take love into consideration one but nor does it take religion into consideration. Two people who love each other can get married or they can stay unmarried, inter-religious couples can do the same. Gays can marry in every state also, they just don't want to marry the opposite sex. And not only was that the law in California, it was the will of the people as expresses in more then one election.

    76. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      So you believe it's perfectly fair that because of an innate trait gays cannot marry someone they are attracted to but heteros can?

      That's about as fair as saying you DO provide equal access because you don't have a rule against people in wheelchairs using your spiral staircase just like the able bodied do.

      An alternative would be to do away with the civil marriage and make that a purely religious matter. Then the state will need to recognize a legal companion in order to deal with everything from emergency medical decisions to inheritance. The 5th amendment would also come into play there. Obviously, the government would have no right at all to tell you who your legal companion could be. We do have freedom of association.

    77. Re:A Straw Vote! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Lenin overthrew a democratic (ok, more or less) elected government, established after the February Revolution. You get to hear about it a lot less than the one in the October afterwards, I admit, but nonetheless it was then when a (again, more or less) democratic process was started.

      The October Revolution happened mostly because Lenin noticed that he would not get anything close to a majority in the elections. And it succeeded because there was not really a lot of support for Kerensky and his attempt to continue the war.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    78. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      So you believe it's perfectly fair that because of an innate trait gays cannot marry someone they are attracted to but heteros can?

      Do you think it's unfair that women have a menstrual cycle and men do not? The law is a way because society decide that's the way they wanted it. Fairness has nothing to do with it. It's not unfair that I can get a license and drive a car where someone who decided to drink and drive lost their license and the law forbids it. They chose to act in ways society decided that wasn't what they wanted, now there are things they can't participate in.

      That's about as fair as saying you DO provide equal access because you don't have a rule against people in wheelchairs using your spiral staircase just like the able bodied do.

      So are you saying that gay people are crippled, injured, or diseased and not capable physically or mentally doing the same things normal people can? Actually they are not. They do have a preference in their sexuality but it's a choice to act on that preference. To make your statement more accurate, it would have to be someone in a wheelchair because they think it's fun to ride in one and no other reason. At least then we have an apples to apples comparison.

      An alternative would be to do away with the civil marriage and make that a purely religious matter. Then the state will need to recognize a legal companion in order to deal with everything from emergency medical decisions to inheritance. The 5th amendment would also come into play there. Obviously, the government would have no right at all to tell you who your legal companion could be. We do have freedom of association.

      well, that's an idea if society decides to go along with it. But the issue that brought this discussion to this point was society deciding one thing, making it law, and some judicial activism interfering with that based on nothing coming close to law.

      However, that would have nothing to do with the 5th amendment. The right not to testify against a spouse is something entirely developed in law and not the 5th amendment at all. It comes from the legal concept of two people becoming one in all matters after marriage. It comes from back when women had little to no rights and they depended on their man to do most everything. If we did away with marriage as a legal concept, there is no reason to carry that over.

    79. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      You should probably know that current thinking is that homosexuality is based in biology, not psychology. So to is menstruation for women. However, as for your point, if it was instead because of legislation, I certainly would support having it nullified on grounds of fairness. I'm guessing you are probably hetero. Homosexuals are just as capable of being heterosexual as you are of being homosexual (and find it about as desirable). The only ones who have anything like a choice are bisexuals.

      If the law is not based on fairness, then those who are treated unfairly are fully justified in destroying the society if they can. That doesn't sound like a very good state of affairs.

      As for the spousal privilege, granted it's not the 5th amendment but it does come from the same line of reasoning. It has nothing to do with the status of women and everything to do with the common law understanding that nobody has any right to interfere with the marriage for any reason.

      It's worth considering that we have a constitutional republic rather than a mob rules democracy. That is specifically because fairness was seen as more important than the will of the majority. The judge's ruling is entirely consistent with that founding principle.

    80. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      You should probably know that current thinking is that homosexuality is based in biology, not psychology. So to is menstruation for women. However, as for your point, if it was instead because of legislation, I certainly would support having it nullified on grounds of fairness. I'm guessing you are probably hetero. Homosexuals are just as capable of being heterosexual as you are of being homosexual (and find it about as desirable). The only ones who have anything like a choice are bisexuals.

      Even if it turns out to be accurate that all gay people are Darwinistic mutants attempting to end their contributions to the gene pool (which I don't believe), preference is always precedes a choice in labeling someone gay. Someone who is attracted to someone of the same sex is not labeled a homosexual until a point in time they participate in homosexual relations with someone. To say there isn't a choice is ridiculous, there always is a choice. It's just a matter of if how you want to make that choice. Make it one way, and you are free to participate in societies little venture called marriage. Make it another way, and you need judges making shit up in order to allow you to participate in that same marriage. Either way, the point wasn't about whether I agree with gays or not, Personally, I could care less (as their act of not procreating seems to be natures way of strengthening the gene pool if you want to get all evolutionist about it), the point was about courts not following the law and inventing things to make their opinion matter over the will of the people or set rules that society agreed to live by.

      You certainly are not suggesting that if you agree with it, it's ok to ignore the constitution, ignore the state's constitution, or the rules and methods of law built around them are you? I mean if you are, then it points out how silly the idea of banning politicians from office if some court decides they voted from something they claim is unconstitutional. I mean think about that.

      If the law is not based on fairness, then those who are treated unfairly are fully justified in destroying the society if they can. That doesn't sound like a very good state of affairs.

      No they are not.In a free society, they are entitled to change societies mind peacefully, but if it doesn't happen, they are not entitled to destroy anything. They are however, entitled to move somewhere else.

      But lets explore this a little more. In 1919, communists infiltrated the socialist parties in the US, they also had their own party. They did not come close to equaling a majority of Americans so they plotted to overthrow the government and install a Stalinist type regime in it's place. Most of these people were foreigners. This plan progressed over the next couple of years and was finally discovered by the US government and ended with the deportation of all non-natural participants that the government could find. The rest went into hiding and the communist party was outlawed for the first time in US history. Those communist and socialist thought things were unfair. Did they have the right to destroy society and put whatever it wanted in it's place? I ask this not because I'm particularly against communism or socialism, those points are ancillary. The point is, that if any group of people has the right to destroy society because of what it thinks isn't fair, then the government is a group of people who can destroy society by ignoring the constitution when it thinks it's fair. Not only can that happen which negate your entire point, Islamic fascist would hold that right too, or just about any other groups that is seen as hostile to freedom. The right to destroy society either exists for all, or it doesn't exist at all. The proper answer to that is to peacefully change society's mind. Not destroy it to serve your own purpose.

      As for the spousal privilege, granted it's not the 5th amendment but it does come from the sam

    81. Re:A Straw Vote! by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your view on "fairness" is exactly the argument of oppressors (or would-be oppressors). "It''s all perfectly fair, everyone is perfectly free to do exactly what I would have them do and then it's just fine". I doubt the conversation can get past that really.

      Breathing is a choice! Should you be afflicted with this abominable urge to breathe, you can surely cure it with a simple plastic bag if you have an ounce of initiative. This makes nearly as much sense as your arguments.

    82. Re:A Straw Vote! by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Your view on "fairness" is exactly the argument of oppressors (or would-be oppressors). "It''s all perfectly fair, everyone is perfectly free to do exactly what I would have them do and then it's just fine". I doubt the conversation can get past that really.

      Well, perhaps is you changed the term "I" to "the majority of people in the country", I can agree with you.

      Breathing is a choice! Should you be afflicted with this abominable urge to breathe, you can surely cure it with a simple plastic bag if you have an ounce of initiative. This makes nearly as much sense as your arguments.

      lol.. Ok, this just shows how inept your argument really is. If you do not breathe, you do not live. If you do not have sexual relations with someone of the same sex, nothing happens to you. If you fail to marry someone of the same sex, nothing life threatening happens to you. If you fail to marry altogether, nothing life threatening happens to you. If you fail to ever have sex with anyone, nothing life threatening happens to you. Being gay is absolutely not like breathing. And yes, even if you put a plastic bag over your sexual organs while having sex, nothing life-threatening happens to you (*unless you have one of the rare allergic reactions to latex or the spermicide found in condoms).

      Anyways, no matter how much you want to make the choice, or why, it's still a choice and still completely different then anything with any life ending consequences attached to it. To more accurately compare it to something, you might be able to compare it to buying a car. You may be genetically predispositions to liking the style of corvettes, you may even be genetically predispositions to the color blue, but in the end, buying a blue corvette is still a choice you have to consciously make. And you are not going to die by not buying one or even by buying a red Ford Torus instead. And yes, just like cars, there are some that are legal on the road and there are some that are not legal to be on the road.

  2. What'a a darknet? by commodore64_love · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a feeling we'll need one in the US very soon (sometime this decade).

    TOR: Congress prepares to follow Egypt with internet kill switch
    http://www.itnews.com.au/News/246707,egyptians-turn-to-tor-to-organise-dissent-online.aspx

    "Appelbaum, a high-profile associate of the Wikileaks whistleblowers' site, said the "irony was rich" in how the US Government that supported the pro-democracy protesters treated him on his return to the country and the experiences of an Egyptian democracy activist who was harassed on his return to Egypt as revealed in a Wikileaks cable."

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    1. Re:What'a a darknet? by toygeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "What's a darknet? I have a feeling we'll need one in the US very soon"

      Typical. You don't know what it is but it sounds cool so we need one. Right.

    2. Re:What'a a darknet? by mob)barley · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's a standalone network that is not physically connected in any way to the public networks we know of as the Internet. Learned that from a Gibson novel.

    3. Re:What'a a darknet? by h00manist · · Score: 1

      I have a feeling we'll need one in the US very soon (sometime this decade).

      Irconically it may be that in Egypt they won't need it after all. US envoy has told Mubarak they recommend him not to run again, not to participate in transition.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/middleeast/02transition.html?emc=na

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    4. Re:What'a a darknet? by timholman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Irconically it may be that in Egypt they won't need it after all. US envoy has told Mubarak they recommend him not to run again, not to participate in transition.

      There's no way the Egyptians will accept half measures from Mubarak at this point, and I doubt Mubarak is foolish enough to think they will.

      Mubarak is trying to buy time while he empties out his bank accounts and hides his loot. He'll be headed to Saudi Arabia before the week is out.

    5. Re:What'a a darknet? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's hard to get any kind of truth out of all of this, but the rumor flying around now is that his son Gamal and other members of the family have already left the country. And I doubt he's scrabbling to gather together cash. In all likelihood he's been squirreling it away for decades, just like Ben Ali and his kin did in Tunisia.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    6. Re:What'a a darknet? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      It's a standalone network that is not physically connected in any way to the public networks we know of as the Internet. Learned that from a Gibson novel.

      It's also used to refer to the allocated but unused IP space in the existing internet. It is a term used by security researchers who are looking for subsets of traffic directed randomly by malware and misconfiguration. It is a good place to find internet worm traffic if you're trying to do research on traffic levels or find new worms.

    7. Re:What'a a darknet? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Why so much hassle? Just look up the IP ranges for China and filter for that. Presto malware traffic.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:What'a a darknet? by h00manist · · Score: 1

      Mubarak is trying to buy time while he empties out his bank accounts and hides his loot. He'll be headed to Saudi Arabia before the week is out.

      Let's hope you're right. Either he's gathering up his money from the closed banks, or he's being foolishly hard headed, which is what I heard commenters say.

      --
      Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
    9. Re:What'a a darknet? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Why so much hassle? Just look up the IP ranges for China and filter for that. Presto malware traffic.

      Your sarcasm notwithstanding, Chinese IP space is primarily valid traffic. Darknet traffic has no real legitimate traffic; just traffic targeting indiscriminate space and erroneous configurations of valid software.

    10. Re:What'a a darknet? by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      i thought he had lost his mind some where along the line?

      --
      warning pointless sig
    11. Re:What'a a darknet? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Most likely, the cash is already in Switzerland... just like all good dictators do with their money.

      Now if you send me a $1000 for assistance in releasing that money, properly sent to a bank in Nigeria, I'll make sure you can help in laundering that money for the Mubarak family to keep that out of the grubby hand of western governments. Those Nigerian bankers are very good at that thing, you know. You can even take online classes about how to ethically help out failing dictatorships.

      I expect a branch campus of this university is soon to open up in Cairo just for this purpose.

    12. Re:What'a a darknet? by Funky+Weasel · · Score: 1

      It's like Shadownet. "Taste the Rainbow."

  3. Governor Tarkin by Covalent · · Score: 1

    The more you tighten you grip, the more Star Systems, er, informed citizens will slip through your fingers.

    --
    Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
    1. Re:Governor Tarkin by Alphaman001 · · Score: 1

      I thought I smelled your foul stench when I logged on....

    2. Re:Governor Tarkin by westlake · · Score: 1

      The more you tighten you grip, the more Star Systems, er, informed citizens will slip through your fingers.

      Don't confuse with reality.

  4. The only time a gov't needs to censor its people.. by Onuma · · Score: 1

    ...is when they've got something they want to hide from the rest of the world.

    I don't mind Frequency Assignments (like the US FCC does) or things like that; we wouldn't want phones interfering with TVs and microwaves, or microwaves exploding our phones! However, no one should be able to limit what we say or to whom we say it.

    --
    What else can happen when an unstoppable force collides with an immovable object?
  5. Does it matter? by Snaller · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just one of our national stations have flow their news people to Egypt and set up a studio broadcasting live from the place and interviewing people on the street.

    Seems any attempt at blocking anything has long since failed . And the military are just look on, they are on the side of the protesters.

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Does it matter? by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I don't think they're on the side of the protesters so much as they're on the side of whoever wins. Which, in a way, seems an appropriate thing for an army to do in a case of popular revolution.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They don't care who wins. They protect the country, no matter which side wins.
      You watch the videos and you see the protectors loving up on them, yet you also see the uniformed people telling/stopping the protesters from being violent. I know there was one where a guy thew a rock at the riot guys, and a military guy next to him picked him up and carried him away.

      I also think the military should not choose sides, as they stop being military. There still going to have their job no matter the outcome. They also don't have a choice if there ordered to help contain the violence. The riot police though, should have a choice as to what side their on.

    3. Re:Does it matter? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 1

      Based on what I've seen the military has been doing a pretty good job of staying unbiased as best they can in all this. I mean this isn't the Bolshevik revolution where at some point the military just said screw you to the Czars and turned their rifles the other way but it also isn't "just following orders" blanket killing.

    4. Re:Does it matter? by v1 · · Score: 1

      it was a millitary coup that put this guy in power in the first place. Most millitaries follow command, and in a case like that the president (president for life/dictator) is at the top. So they're probably going to do just what he tells them to, until they realize his overthrow is inevitable, at which point they'll start considering what actions they'll be held accountable for by the new ruling party, and only then do you usually see them not following orders.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    5. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      They also don't have a choice if there ordered to help contain the violence. The riot police though, should have a choice as to what side their on.

      I disagree, you've got that backwards. The soldiers are there to protect the country, the police are there to protect the government. The soldiers have every right to refuse orders to deploy against the population.

      As a matter of principle, it's one of the few things which can keep a government straight - if you antagonise enough of the population that they can rise up and defeat your civilian police force, your army should not (and hopefully will not) protect you.

      What they should do, symbolically at least, is march up to the border of the country, spread out (on their side), and turn to face outwards.

      --
      FGD 135
    6. Re:Does it matter? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Military personnel are still people. If they choose to align with the protesters as people and not as military, should they be stripped from this right?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    7. Re:Does it matter? by TubeSteak · · Score: 1

      I don't think they're on the side of the protesters so much as they're on the side of whoever wins. Which, in a way, seems an appropriate thing for an army to do in a case of popular revolution.

      Egypt has mandatory military service.
      The people protesting and the soldiers on the ground are not mutally exclusive groups.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    8. Re:Does it matter? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And the military are just look on, they are on the side of the protesters.

      They're not so much on the side of the protesters as they are not on the side of Mubarik. (The military has been increasingly dissatisfied with him for some time now.)
       
      By taking what appears to be the moral high ground by appearing to side with the protesters, they're setting themselves up as kingmakers as this continues to shake out. They're demonstrating that their loyalty is not to government or constitution - but to whoever displeases them the least.
       
      I would not at all be surprised if a military revolution/junta emerges out of this.

    9. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mubarak is an Air Force man. The air force has been conspicuously showing its strength, overflying the protests with fighters and helicopters, but there's not much they can do with no presence on the ground. But the army, as in most countries' militaries, despises the air force.

    10. Re:Does it matter? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      That is also why it seems so remarkable that the military isn't doing anything with these protests that seem to be pointing to an inevitable overthrow of the current government. For some reason, the general officers are not openly supporting Mubarak and only seem to be essentially doing emergency police work... and even that seems to be only so far as pointing a gun at folks who are pointing guns and not really doing any overt prosecution of criminal behavior.

      This also happened in China as well during the Tiananmen Square protests... until the Chinese government brought in divisions from elsewhere in the country that weren't so sympathetic to the demonstrators. Similarly, the military coup which tried to take over in the last days of the Soviet Union failed when some of the divisions refused to follow orders.

      What the end-game is that Mubarak is trying to follow here isn't exactly clear, but it seems like his big play to send in the military to stop the protests has failed because the Egyptian Army refuses to stop the protests. If orders to stop those protests were ever given, they sure aren't being followed.

    11. Re:Does it matter? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Most soldiers and military personnel swear an oath to follow any "lawful order" given by their superior officers. It gets real tricky trying to decide if something is a lawful order or not.

      On the other hand, if a colonel or a general refuses to follow an order, it is likely that the men serving under those officers will follow the lead of their commanding officer and refuse to follow that order too. A private soldier is usually not paid enough to think such things through, but officers... especially senior officers are put in a position to consider the consequences of such actions. Such senior officers are also in a position to have some resources and political support for their actions too.

      This seems to be the case in Egypt, where the senior officers are not openly showing support for Mubarak and in fact are staying "neutral" on the whole issue to the point of sort of supporting the protesters by inaction.

      In terms of privates and ordinary seamen in America engaging in some sort of public protest like the Tea Party gatherings or the anti-war protests during the Vietnam War.... those have since become illegal by direct general order from the U.S. President. That started BTW under the Clinton Administration, where orders were specifically sent out that it was "conduct unbecoming" to be critical of the commander-in-chief. So far as I know, those orders are still in effect.

    12. Re:Does it matter? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      That is also why it seems so remarkable that the military isn't doing anything with these protests that seem to be pointing to an inevitable overthrow of the current government

      I think the answer is in the word 'inevitable'. It's not especially healthy to be on the losing side in a revolution.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    13. Re:Does it matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The military are doing exactly that they're meant to do - protecting the people.

      The sad thing is they're protecting the people from the police who seem to view protesters as criminals.

    14. Re:Does it matter? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The protests in China seemed to look like an "inevitable" revolution, yet the government was successful in suppressing not only the protests but even mention of them as if it never happened in the first place. Even now, the Chinese government is still "cleansing" the internet and shutting off websites simply because this protest is merely mentioned.

      Trying to decide when something is inevitable is a difficult choice to make, and it is possible to get it wrong. What is more, being a military commander gives you the ability to choose sides and influence the final outcome.... although you must be careful when that happens. Benedict Arnold is infamous in American history for trying to do just that, where he even "switched back" and became essentially a double traitor. What is more, I completely understand why Arnold made the actions he did, not that I agree with his conclusions.

  6. Re:The only time a gov't needs to censor its peopl by commodore64_love · · Score: 0

    >>>I don't mind Frequency Assignments

    Speaking of assignments: the FCC is planning to sell-off the Free TV frequencies sometime this decade (current date is 2015 but will probably be pushed back). What on earth would replace it, I wonder. Non-free cable tv I suppose.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
  7. Loss of power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    No surprise here. The closer a goverment comes to losing power -- the first concern and top priority for any government -- the more they resort to coercion in their attempts to avoid the loss of power. Egypt is hardly unique in this respect. Every government has and will do this, because coercion is government's only tool in a situation like this. (Let's call a spade a spade here: coercion is government's ONLY tool, the one which they necessarily employ in every aspect of their business.) The elite at the top of the pyramid are terrified of losing power, and their reactions to protest illustrate this perfectly.

    With that said, it's beyond me how and why people put a single ounce of trust in those who control them through force.

    1. Re:Loss of power by MightyMartian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      With that said, it's beyond me how and why people put a single ounce of trust in those who control them through force.

      Because they can control the people by force? It's not like you often have a choice. The Egyptian people are like people everywhere. Their first concern is the wellbeing of their families and themselves. You have El Presidente basically saying "I will hurt you and those you love if you dare rise against me", and then demonstrate it every once in a while, well, people learn to keep their heads down.

      Revolutions happen when that culture of fear breaks down, usually because at some point people see that the Emperor has no clothes. In the Arab states, what seems to have happened is that an already weak regime in Tunisia collapsed with relative ease, and a whole bunch of other Arabs in other states suddenly realized that maybe it wasn't THAT dangerous to throw out the dictators. Once that's been broken, once the idea of the state as this all-powerful entity no longer holds true, that's the end of the story.

      We saw it in Tunisia with Ben Ali, and we're seeing it with Mubarak. It's almost laughably ironic that Mubarak is going through the same contortions Ben Ali did just a few weeks ago. Now it's reported he'll announce that he won't run again in September, just like Ben Ali seemed to open the way for meaningful rivals for the presidency in the final days. But the time has come and gone for that, and now that the army has signaled that it's sitting this one out (other than to maintain a degree of law and order so the whole thing doesn't collapse into anarchy, which it seemed poised to do a couple of days ago), Mubarak has damned few cards left. "I promise to go real soon" is the final death rattle of a regime that no longer has the strength to hold itself erect. I suspect Mubarak is trying that as much to keep the Americans and Europeans happy with dreams of a "peaceful transfer" (read: keep the Muslim Brotherhood out) as anything else.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    2. Re:Loss of power by cforciea · · Score: 1

      Because there has always historically been a pyramid and therefore always somebody who can control through force. Your options are to either have everybody be roughly equal in power (communism) or you have to pick which entity carries the biggest stick. In a representative democracy, the idea is to try to keep the entity with the stick under your thumb, which is a whole lot better than some arbitrary rich guy/corporation amassing enough power to control you, where you have no recourse at all.

    3. Re:Loss of power by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Actually, the idea in America is to give a number of coeval entities their own sticks, and make sure that they have enough separate powers, but at the same time enough overlapping powers that none of the three can ever actually gain any kind long-term dominance. It's actually a brilliant idea. The Convention Parliament in 1688-1689 in England came close with the Bill of Rights, 1689, by making the Executive (the Crown and its Ministers) subservient to Parliament, but the US Founding Fathers were smart enough to see how that didn't quite do the job so they furthered the concept of separation of powers.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    4. Re:Loss of power by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      but they don't, really, the executive has control over the stick. The legislature notionally has control over the funding of the stick, but an executive sufficiently able to control the stick can have it seize its own funding and resources (or force the legislature's hand; as whichever president it was in the early 20th century did by ordering the Navy out, and daring congress to leave it stranded). All the judiciary has is a soapbox to shout from.

      --
      FGD 135
    5. Re:Loss of power by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What you're describing is politics, and no constitution will ever eliminate that. The fact of the matter is the President's powers are not infinite, as a Federal Court just demonstrated with Obama's health care legislation. This is what I mean. Yes, the President can put Congress in terrible positions, but at the end of the day, Congress still has the capacity to beat the President with a stick. In fact, if the President pisses off Congress too much, they can even override that most potent executive power; vetoing of legislation.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  8. You'd think a business would be scared by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    How can you possibly run a business in a place where the government might shut off a crucial resource at any time?

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You'd think a business would be scared by dave562 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How do American companies function every day? The company that I am working for is actually losing business because our clients do not want to store their data on our servers here in the United States. Everyone is concerned about the PATRIOT Act and the power it gives the government to compel disclosure of what should be private and confidential data. Although it is not exactly the same as being shut down, it goes to show that the effects of government policy are not just related to dictators in African countries.

    2. Re:You'd think a business would be scared by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Everyone is concerned about the PATRIOT Act and the power it gives the government to compel disclosure of what should be private and confidential data.

      That's a pretty weak fear though compared to having NO ACCESS to your own data.

      I think it's wrong to equate the two things since one is about access by third parties and the other is sheer existence. If the government ends up spying on you, you've lost nothing.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:You'd think a business would be scared by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Well, I know businesses who would be more concerned with outsiders gaining access to their data than them being cut off from said data. Think off-site, emergency backups. If you happen to lose contact with your off-site backup place, you open a new one and everything continues running smoothly. If that data is sensitive and gets out, the damage is hard to measure, it may as well shut down your business.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:You'd think a business would be scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      If the government ends up spying on you, you've lost nothing.

      Maybe, maybe not. It depends on what government intends to do with it -- you can easily lose your freedom, money, and perhaps life. It is assumed that many governments actively help with industrial espionage; in which case losses are relatively easy to see.

    5. Re:You'd think a business would be scared by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the government ends up spying on you, you've lost nothing.

      FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU.......

  9. You say 'when', but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

    You say 'when', but perhaps what you mean is 'if'? Perhaps Egypt will simply slide back into the 'Dark' Ages again? Then the Amish could vacation there.

    1. Re:You say 'when', but.... by artor3 · · Score: 2

      How do you propose the Amish get there? Horse-drawn jetliner?

    2. Re:You say 'when', but.... by macraig · · Score: 1

      They can make a Viking boat.

    3. Re:You say 'when', but.... by Cogita · · Score: 1

      How do you propose the Amish get there? Horse-drawn jetliner?

      Dolphins.

      --
      -- "The Price of Freedom of Speech, of Press, or of Religion is that we must put up with a good deal of rubbish."
    4. Re:You say 'when', but.... by bsane · · Score: 1

      Tall ship?

  10. Telecomix by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Telecomix also set up a dialup service and was in ham radio contact with the Egyptians during the processes. They did a mass faxing operation to get information about the services and ham radio freqs into Egypt.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/29/anonymous-internet-egypt_n_815889.html

    Telecomix are pretty awesome

  11. amusing to see the importance given to internet by youn · · Score: 1

    if they are so important, it makes you wonder how they managed to go countrywide during the french revolution, the english revolution, various independance... maybe the internet was invented earlier than we thought... or maybe the internet is only a high tech version of the natural power of gossip that has existed for centuries and things would have happened anyway even without the internet

    --
    Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    1. Re:amusing to see the importance given to internet by maxwell+demon · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's that at that time the communication abilities of the people in power were similarly constrained. I strongly doubt that the internal communication of the government/police is cut of in Egypt.

      Why don't we use swords to fight in Afghanistan? After all, many wars in the past have been won using swords.

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
    2. Re:amusing to see the importance given to internet by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      there was an English revolution? That must have been skipped in my history classes. Was it before or after the civil war?

      --
      FGD 135
    3. Re:amusing to see the importance given to internet by youn · · Score: 1

      Good call, that's true, Civil war is the official name :). call it what you want... they killed the king, followed by a dictator (Cromwell)... very similar in many aspects (though different I agree) to what happened in the french revolution (which I agree also was a much larger scale) and ended up in a redistribution of power.

      --
      Never antropomorphize computers, they do not like that :p
    4. Re:amusing to see the importance given to internet by Teancum · · Score: 1

      Why do you think the 1st amendment was the first one ratified in America? Printing presses were one of the first things attacked by the English Crown in the 1770s, and in fact it was a stamp tax on American presses that was in part responsible for starting the American Revolution. Committees of correspondence was one of the key elements of the revolution in America, and one of the things that has been emulated in most other revolutionary movements that happened afterward as well. If you want to make changes, communication is a major key.

      BTW, a printing press was "high tech" in the 1700's.

    5. Re:amusing to see the importance given to internet by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      there was an English revolution? That must have been skipped in my history classes.

      Yes, it must have been. Not that it's terribly relevant to GP's comment, but still.

  12. Lets not be next by droidsURlooking4 · · Score: 1

    seriously, as crazy as it sounds in Egypt, they are trying to set the same thing up here (USA).

    1. Re:Lets not be next by silanea · · Score: 1

      If by "it" you are referring to a democracy, well, you could use a new one. Yours looks kinda broken to me.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    2. Re:Lets not be next by travisb828 · · Score: 1

      I think the "it" being referred to is proposed legislation that would give the president to shut down the Internet during a "national cyber emergency". http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20029282-281.html?tag=mncol;txt

    3. Re:Lets not be next by silanea · · Score: 1

      Ah, I had indeed completely misinterpreted OP's comment. That is what reading too much Islam bashing on one day does to you. Frightening, really.

      More on topic, though, such proposals seem to be a dime a dozen at the moment.

      --
      Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
    4. Re:Lets not be next by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      the internet kill switch;
      the one of the state senators here voted for -__- then i wrote a letter and got copy pasted lies from an intern

      and usa was never a democracy its a republic

      --
      warning pointless sig
  13. Empty barns... by jfalcon · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that setting up darknets, encryption and vpn's after a internet blackout is lifted is sort of like closing the barn door after the animals get out.

    If you're going to be an organization that runs in to restore communication links when the people at the top turn the switch off, you're gonna need a little more coordination than taking the shotgun approach. You need to employ organized, practiced emergency communication practices. The same practices that you would employ during a natural disaster that knocks out communications. I don't really see that going on here.

    Telecomix has a dialup pool of modems available for people to dial to "if" they can call out of the country.. never mind that it's their dime to make the international call. I guess in a place where the average wage is $2/day they could try and phreak it but then someone gets toss into a prison and that's pretty much the reason they're protesting in the first place...

    Amateur Radio operators in Egypt may also be under the same blackout as the radio/internet people as well in fear of said prisons. It would explain why there is no APRS traffic coming from Egypt...

    I'm of the opinion that if you're being suppressed/repressed by your government, you can either obey or go pirate. And if you're gonna go pirate, then you need to coordinate some... or get your own satellite phone like the news agencies have.

    Organizations like this may be able to help this cause: http://buythissatellite.org/

    --
    boom goes the dynamite....
    1. Re:Empty barns... by cpghost · · Score: 1

      I'm of the opinion that if you're being suppressed/repressed by your government, you can either obey or go pirate. And if you're gonna go pirate, then you need to coordinate some... or get your own satellite phone like the news agencies have.

      In in that case, you better have 1/ a convertible currency to buy said satellite phone link, and 2/ a working financial system, i.e. banks still performing international transactions. Both of which is not a given for some 3rd world countries, esp. during a time or crisis.

      --
      cpghost at Cordula's Web.
    2. Re:Empty barns... by jfalcon · · Score: 1

      In in that case, you better have 1/ a convertible currency to buy said satellite phone link, and 2/ a working financial system, i.e. banks still performing international transactions. Both of which is not a given for some 3rd world countries, esp. during a time or crisis.

      I'd expect that if you are organized enough to get your message out, you also have:

      1.) a currency that isn't going to be more useless than toilet paper tomorrow tied to a foreign 3rd party bank... I hear that's what the swiss excel in...
      2.) a group that has your back like the red crecent/red cross... or at least willing to pull some strings to get you smuggled out of the country if you're being hunted...
      3.) a satellite termnal/phone since they are relatively cheap... it's the satcom time that's expensive. While it's all good gestures to allow your Cairo apartment block tweet out some messages to their family abroad and upload the snuff video of the day to youtube, you better have some backing behind you for those times when the tanks roll into your town...

      Again, I didn't see any pirate APRS packets coming from Egypt all weekend. So I'm assuming that things aren't dire enough to do so.
      There are LEO birds that pass over Cairo twice a day at least... so not hearing a single packet from there shows they didn't need to employ all options. And for APRS, it only takes a computer with a soundcard and a handheld radio in a open area.

      --
      boom goes the dynamite....
  14. Worse Things to Come? by Belteshazzar · · Score: 0

    It would seem once all outside communication is cut off the time would be ripe to ramp up the violence and brutally crush this uprising.

  15. Egypt wasn't shut down by microbee · · Score: 5, Funny

    They just used up their monthly data caps. They will be here in the next billing cycle.

    An AT&T spokesman said.

  16. what we really need... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    is a large, voluntarily joined, (white) botnet.

    1. Re:what we really need... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Like, say, freenet?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:what we really need... by monkyyy · · Score: 1

      ive said the same thing before, then they updated loic so it can stay upto date by irc

      --
      warning pointless sig
  17. Dear Egypt by rudy_wayne · · Score: 2, Funny

    Dear Egypt,

    All IP addresses previously assigned to you have been revoked and given to others, since you apparently don't want them anymore.

    Thank you for helping us with the dwindling supply of IPv4 addresses.

    Sincerely,
    ARIN

    1. Re:Dear Egypt by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      If I still had mod points, yes, I would have modded you redundant. (NOTE: would have modded the parent, not the GP; this is the first time I've seen that expressed. Requests for others to moderate, though, I see them all the time and agree that they are redundant.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    2. Re:Dear Egypt by Imagix · · Score: 1

      Signed by the wrong people.... you're thinking of ICANN. Those IPs wouldn't go to ARIN anyway... they'd go to AfriNIC.

    3. Re:Dear Egypt by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Look in the article about IANA running out of IPv4 addresses. At least six people posted almost exactly the same thing.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    4. Re:Dear Egypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unfortunately Egypt's addresses are assigned by AfriNIC and thus cannot be revoked by ARIN.

      HTH. HAND.

  18. Who is telecomix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do we care what their opinion about other countries are? I don't get this. If I ask any asshole a question on the street, I am sure I will get an opinion. I am not sure why these guys matter.

  19. You, Net activists at Telecomix by unity100 · · Score: 1

    I think i wont be alone, if i say that, you are really doing some good shit, with what you are doing, as of this moment. Tho i rarely show proper appreciation for things that are good in my life, i will take the time to say this : Well done, we appreciate that.

  20. IPv4 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only we had the IP addresses to support them!

  21. Because Then... by Greyfox · · Score: 1

    The flame war begins! Imagine the epicness of a flame war that's been suppressed for a week while people had legitimate cause to rant about! My God... Life on Earth might not survive...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  22. Not that...please NOT THAT! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
    I think you may be a bit off: (from another post the other day)

    "OK, now a lot of people have been wondering how Egypt managed to isolate itself on the Web. There are principally two ways this is done, first physically forcing the individual ISPs (ASN level) to halt all in and out-going IP traffic, but the second way is probably how they accomplished it. Let this be a warning to all who try.

    They would have had the site which is their top-domain registry, or .eg registry, perform editing of their country's web sites by removing the terminating "." to DNS records in the .eg zone.

    (That is, deleting the "." following the lower level sites, indicating no ".eg" was to follow.)

    As an example, were one to evilly hack into Sweden's .se country registry (www.iis.se), and remove the terminating "." after the main ASN sites, no IP traffic would be incoming or outgoing for that country.

    As an example, were one to evilly hack into the United Kingdom's .uk country registry (www.nominet.org.uk), and remove the terminating "." after the main ASN sites, no IP traffic would be incoming or outgoing for that country.

    As an example, were one to evilly hack into Switzerland's .ch country registry (www.switch.ch/all), and remove the terminating "." after the main ASN sites, no IP traffic would be incoming or outgoing for that country.

    Now, this is assuredly against the law, so be warned not do undertake any such operation --- even if the global banking elite manages to have Assange of Wikileaks illegally extradited to Sweden to be later removed to some extreme rendition site."

    1. Re:Not that...please NOT THAT! by 0x000000 · · Score: 1

      I am probably missing something funny here. Egypt did not remove their top-level domain entries, that wouldn't accomplish anything. Egypt stopped announcing their ASN, and thus all of the routes for their assigned IP addresses.

      Removing just the top-level domain would still allow people to use IP addresses to communicate over the network, and would still allow outgoing traffic as well.

      --
      cat /dev/null > .signature
  23. Does this mean we can have their IP addresses? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What more do I need to type? What a lame lameness filter.

  24. Time to cut off the government by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

    Sounds like it's time to cut off Mubarak from *his* communication and see how he likes it. How hard would it be to cut off his TV, phone, etc links to the outside world?

  25. Re:The only time a gov't needs to censor its peopl by Omestes · · Score: 1

    Speaking of assignments: the FCC is planning to sell-off the Free TV frequencies sometime this decade (current date is 2015 but will probably be pushed back). What on earth would replace it, I wonder. Non-free cable tv I suppose.

    Are you sure they aren't just auctioning off the part of the spectrum they freed up by pushing digital broadcasting?

    --
    A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  26. Pulling the plug by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darknets, Tor, etc. won't do you any good if someone walks over to the distribution frame and does a physical media disconnect (literally pulls the plug) as has been said happened in Egypt.

    When that happens, communication drops to sneaker-net (aka store & forward). Someone has to physically smuggle the bytes across the border. You can't beat the bandwidth of a couple of 2TB drives sitting in the business section of a British Airways flight.

    If Joe Lieberman wants to help, instead of passing a law mandating a kill-switch {rolleyes}, pass a law mandating an air gap for all critical infrastructure IT systems.

  27. Samizdat anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This sounds a lot like a modern-day high-tech system of samizdat.

  28. Tax it to death by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So then they will tax it to death. Recall that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

  29. Tax it into submission by chfriley · · Score: 1

    (I know the original was somewhat tongue-in-cheek, but the power-hungry politicians will find ways to get around it):
    The politicians will just try to (a) tax it to death (either the companies or the subscribers), (b) regulate it "in order to make sure it is free and non-discriminatory," or (c) have "voluntary" codes that ensure that access by children (and other protected classes) aren't shown "inappropriate content."

    The power to tax is the power to destroy and the power to regulate is the power to control. You don't need to shut down the Internet to have control over it. You just have to be the ONE to define "inappropriate" or the ONE to decide what the "voluntary" codes are or the ONE to set the tax rates. Or give "tax breaks" to companies that comply with the "suggestions" - kind of like the Federal Highway funds used to be tied to speed limits.

  30. Cisco won't allow routers as weapons, Huawei will by h00manist · · Score: 1

    I can't tell if you're ridiculing the OP's argument by using the reductio ad absurdum method, or whether you are serious, but insane.

    As this is slashdot, sadly the later is more likely.

    I indeed desire the whole copyright, trademark and defamation laws to be gone. Political reality displays it is unrealistic to expect soon, but my opinions remain. Mentioned within an article to pass legislation favoring death penalties by cisco router beating seems entirely appropriate. If you disagree however, you can sue me on Cisco's behalf for making such statements, arguing unauthorized use of trademark. Perhaps they won't authorize the case out of concern for negative PR consequences, but the case would likely be successful. Perhaps Huawei would sponsor the cause, however.

    --
    Build your own energy sources from scratch. http://otherpower.com/
  31. Re:The only time a gov't needs to censor its peopl by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

    >>>I don't mind Frequency Assignments

    Speaking of assignments: the FCC is planning to sell-off the Free TV frequencies sometime this decade (current date is 2015 but will probably be pushed back). What on earth would replace it, I wonder? Non-free cable tv I suppose.

    >>>Are you sure they aren't just auctioning off the part of the spectrum they freed up by pushing digital broadcasting?
    >>>

    No those channels (52-to-69) were sold-off in 2008, before the transition was even complete, and then the money used to supply $40 coupons. This is a new plan to convert channels 14-to-51 into cellualr/internet usage.

    --
    "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall