Slashdot Mirror


DHS Wants Mozilla To Disable Mafiaafire Plugin, Mozilla Resists

Davis Freeberg writes "The Department of Homeland Security is hard at work again, protecting the industry from websites that the big studios don't want you to see. This time they're targeting the Mafiaafire plugin by asking Mozilla to disable the addon at the root level. Instead of blindly complying with the government's request, Mozilla has decided to ask some tough questions instead. Unsurprisingly, when faced with legitimate concerns about the legality of their domain seizure program, the DHS has decided to clam up."

360 comments

  1. A reasonable stance by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's good to see that Mozilla is holding strong to their core values. DHS needs more people willing to question what they do. Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

    1. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I still don't understand why the Department of Homeland Security has to be involved with websites. Shouldn't that be reserved for the cyberpolice? That's where I report all the people who'd done goof'd.

    2. Re:A reasonable stance by MoonBuggy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Absolutely. I was particularly glad to see, in the full list of questions asked, that they question the seizure program itself, not just the dubious claims about the plug-in. The list is as follows (the source linked above is apparently a copy of the official email):

      April 19, 2011 email from Mozilla to US Department of Homeland Security Special Agent
      To help us evaluate the Department of Homeland Security's request to take-down/remove the MAFIAAfire.com add-on from Mozilla's websites, can you please provide the following additional information:
      1. Have any courts determined that MAFIAAfire.com is unlawful or illegal in any way? If so, on what basis? (Please provide any relevant rulings)
      2. Have any courts determined that the seized domains related to MAFIAAfire.com are unlawful, illegal or liable for infringement in any way? (please provide relevant rulings)
      3. Is Mozilla legally obligated to disable the add-on or is this request based on other reasons? If other reasons, can you please specify.
      4. Has DHS, or any copyright owners involved in this matter, taken any legal action against MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domains, including DMCA requests?
      5. What protections are in place for MAFIAAfire.com or the seized domain owners if eventually a court decides they were not unlawful?
      6. Can you please provide copies of any briefs that accompanied the affidavit considered by the court that issued the relevant seizure orders?
      7. Can you please provide a copy of the relevant seizure order upon which your request to Mozilla to take down MAFIAAfire.com is based?
      8. Please identify exactly what the infringements by the owners of the domains consisted of, with reference to the substantive standards of Section 106 and to any case law establishing that the actions of the seized domain owners consti tuted civil or criminal copyright infringement.
      9. Did any copyright owners furnish affidavits in connection with the domain seizures? Had any copyright owners served DMCA takedown notices on the seized
      domains or MAFIAAfire.com? (if so please provide us with a copy)
      10. Has the Government furnished the domain owners with formal notice of the seizures, triggering the time period for a response by the owners? If so, when, and have there been any responses yet by owners?
      11. Has the Government communicated its concerns directly with MAFIAAfire.com? If so, what response, if any, did MAFIAAfire.com make?

    3. Re:A reasonable stance by X0563511 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, I'm not sure on what child pornography or even (the horror!) media/software pirates have to do with National Security either...

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    4. Re:A reasonable stance by cpu6502 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      >>>Blind compliance to government demands is anti-American and it saddens me to see so many people simply fall in line.

      I had a former classmate call me an "idiot" because I refused to let my car be searched by the Homeland SA. He's right that it would be easier to comply, but the law is the law. I obey the law and I expect government employees to obey the law too.

      No search without court-issued warrant,
      and affirmed by oath before the judge.

      Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison, but not while I'm trying to enjoy a nice summer drive and no emergency exists. They've ALL sworn to obey that law. So let them obey it, instead of ignoring it.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    5. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

    6. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Many, if not most humans seem to be authoritarians, who are comforted by the idea of some all powerful authority overseeing things, be it God, the Government, Karma, or the Company. When it looks as though they are not actually authoritarians, it is usually just because they don't like that particular authority. Show them one they like and they will fall all over themselves kissing its ass.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Do you really think that DHS cares about the law? They're jack booted thugs, they couldn't be more neo-Nazi if Hugo Boss were designing their uniforms. If they thought that you had something that they really wanted they'd disappear your ass and throw you in Guantanamo Bay with the rest of the "enemy combatants." The only reason you got away with refusing a search is that they probably didn't think you were worth the effort, and by the sounds of it, you aren't. Not because you "know your rights," which DHS has not, does not and never will give a flying fuck about what rights you think you have.

    8. Re:A reasonable stance by TheEyes · · Score: 2

      this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

      There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.

    9. Re:A reasonable stance by LifesABeach · · Score: 2

      I kind of figured that web sites were shielded by the first amendment. Since when did a person need a web site to download, FTP has been around longer than WWW.

    10. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison

      Please explain.
      I'd hate to go all "but that's a slippery slope" on you.

      Are you willing to bend your willingness to allow yourself to be searched if "a murderer just escaped"?
      Or are you willing to grant the government powers to search anyone if "a murderer just escaped"?

    11. Re:A reasonable stance by davide+marney · · Score: 5, Insightful

      12. Under which section(s) of the law is your request authorized, and what are the names and contact information of the DHS agents who are requesting that this action be taken?

      --
      "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
    12. Re:A reasonable stance by BinarySolo · · Score: 1

      this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

      There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.

      The point of his comparison has nothing to do with the plugin or its availability.

    13. Re:A reasonable stance by cpu6502 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      NO. He meant you should *support* Mozilla because they fight government tyranny. Google would have just complied with this request w/o a fight.

      I'm concerned about what I've read about this addon: "MafiaaFire Redirector hasn't any build-in list of redirected sites. MafiaaFire Redirector download the "redirect list" from 4 websites:
      http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list.php
      http://ifucksexygirls.com/xml-update/xml-list2.php
      http://ezee.se/xml-update/xml-list3.php
      http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list1.php"

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    14. Re:A reasonable stance by MoonBuggy · · Score: 1

      I'm not necessarily saying I agree, but the logic behind granting government/law enforcement relevant and specific increased powers in times of emergency is not necessarily faulty. The actual problem is that we can't trust them not to say "Yup, potential terrorists everywhere. War going on, too. Sounds like an emergency to me; go get the cavity searchin' gloves, Gary."

    15. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prepare to get Binned!

      Hey mozilla, I recommend you do what they say. Unless, of course, you want a 3AM wake up call by a dozen Navy SEALS with orders to shoot you in the face.

    16. Re:A reasonable stance by rjh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First, calling them the "Homeland SA" is kind of like referring to "Bushitler." It's both historically ignorant and profoundly offensive to a lot of people. The Sturmabteilung had a career of evil the likes of which I hope to never again see. If you sincerely believe the DHS merits comparison to the SA, then your only choice is to take up arms against your government.

      Second, unless the DHS agents said "screw you and the Fourth Amendment, we're going to search you anyway!", then it sounds as if they obeyed the law just fine. They're allowed to ask you for permission to search your vehicle, and you have the right to say no. Where's the illegality?

    17. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are more naive than you accuse him of being. And you know it, which is why you try so hard to come off as a jaded cynic.

    18. Re:A reasonable stance by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      this is one of the many reasons why you should use Mozilla's Firefox than Google's Chrome

      There's a Chrome plugin too; maybe the lesson is to not use IE or Safari.

      The point of his comparison has nothing to do with the plugin or its availability.

      Well, until Google removes its own version of the plugin without telling anyone, it kind of is. We've already seen Google stand up to censorship before, and in fact stands to lose hundreds of millions, even billions, in doing so, so while I'll admit they're not as pure as I'd like them to be, they still are a sight better than some other companies I can name.

    19. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Or are you willing to grant the government powers to search anyone if "a murderer just escaped"?

      I'm not the original AC.

      But as for me, I'm willing to grant the government that power if, and only if, an officer of the law is willing to say, under oath if required, that the circumstances were exigent. The courts have already ruled that he's got that power, and with pretty good reason.

      Knock on my door and ask if you can come in, I'll say not without a warrant. Break down my door without a warrant, and after the dust has settled, we'll either shake hands and go our separate ways, or we'll settle our differences as to whether or not the entry was lawful or not in court.

      Maybe the cop really did see a escaped murder ducking into my garage 30 seconds ago. Maybe he's just some roided up pig who wants to vent his roid rage on a random civilian and I'm the unlucky guy in his sights. Maybe it's somewhere in between - he's got a perfectly valid warrant but was too stupid to read it correctly (or the issuing judge was too stupid to type it up correctly!) and accidentally broke down the door of our hypothetical fugitive's neighbor.

      The time and place to settle those, and similar, differences of opinion is in court. You settle those differences of opinion with polite words, articles in the newspaper, recall petitions against the DA and mayor, and civil rights lawsuits against the town. You do not settle those issues with bullets and fists. Not just because the cops have an infinite supply of both, but because it's just plain uncivilized for grown adults to settle their differences that way. Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. In that order.

    20. Re:A reasonable stance by reboot246 · · Score: 3, Funny

      13. Who died and made you God?

      (they think they are!)

    21. Re:A reasonable stance by eepok · · Score: 1

      I assert that ACs don't count for Godwin'ing.

    22. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it's easier to comply with the law, whether it's to let them search your car without a warrant or give them a bribe, or whatever.

      If you want freedom, then you have to fight for it, you have to endure frustration and humiliation and other *ations, I'm sure Americans have a lot of quotes about this considering their experience. No sarcasm intended.

      Found some here:
      http://thinkexist.com/quotations/freedom/

    23. Re:A reasonable stance by KiloByte · · Score: 1

      I've had enough relatives murdered by UB ("Bureau of Security") to see the likes of Commission of Homeland Security (KGB), Securitate, Stasi, Gestapo and anything of their ilk as not exactly forces for "not evil".

      And yeah, saying "screw you and the Fourth Amendment" is exactly what they're saying.

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    24. Re:A reasonable stance by Haedrian · · Score: 1

      Media/Software piracy hands out media for free.

      This is clearly a commie plot to destroy American values.

    25. Re:A reasonable stance by The+Dawn+Of+Time · · Score: 2

      It seems to be a statistical truth. There are many, many more followers than there are leaders.

    26. Re:A reasonable stance by rjh · · Score: 2

      Yeah, but we've already established that in the OP's anecdote the DHS agents did respect the Fourth Amendment. They had neither a warrant nor his consent, so he wasn't searched. Where's the 'screw you and the Fourth Amendment' you're talking about?

    27. Re:A reasonable stance by Algae_94 · · Score: 2

      How can you have concerns with downloading updates fro ifucksexygirls.com

      on a serious note, I could see DHS seizing the 3 .com domains in that list just because of this plugin.

    28. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your individuality.

      The DHS.

    29. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      14. Since I am a voter, you work for me. So, you won't be mad when I tell you to go fuck yourself.

    30. Re:A reasonable stance by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 2

      The Immigration and Customs enforcement guys were folded into the DHS during the second Bush years.

    31. Re:A reasonable stance by Doctor_Jest · · Score: 1

      In that anecdote, yes. But in FAR too many cases, the vehicle is impounded and the driver sits and waits for a warrant so they can do it ANYWAY, even without your consent. Happens lots of times in many more places than you or even I realize. Remember, if they want what you got... they are going to fuck the 4th amendment... in the ass with a big, rubber dick. Don't kid yourself and think the power these asspiles wield is NOT a greater threat to liberty than 10,000 Osama Bin Ladens.... (yeah, I went there.... because I care more about the Bill of Rights than a bunch of bureaucratic assholes with ball fetishes and secret desires to fuck little children with their finger while "patting them down." Because we all know Judy is in the 3rd grade. SHE COULD BE A TERRAHRIST!)

      Fuck the government.

      --
      It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
    32. Re:A reasonable stance by mentil · · Score: 2

      If you desire a world that's perfectly just, then an omniscient, omnipotent ruler is required. Politicians sell the idea of a world that's perfectly just, and people who feel afraid or have been wronged desire this outcome -- authoritarianism.
      I don't think politicians promote this because they consciously want more power (they may, but this usually isn't why they promote easy justice). I think it's because it's an easy way to score points with voters and mollify the public if anything that makes them feel afraid (like a terrorist attack) happens.
      It should be obvious that America's founders intended for a system that wouldn't be perfectly just, e.g. innocent until proven guilty, but it was too easy for citizens to desire justice and fail to see that its implementation ends up being weighed against liberty.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    33. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit

      Really? Not me.

    34. Re:A reasonable stance by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 3, Funny

      The DHS has never done just one thing-- maybe that's why they don't do it well.

    35. Re:A reasonable stance by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      I don't believe he has a voice for anyone else so one might reasonably assume the former.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    36. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Letting them do whatever they please (or giving them powers that they previously didn't have for good reason) just because there is a perceived emergency is incredibly foolish. The lack of checks and balances merely increase the chances of mistakes by authority figures and malicious actions by authority figures happening. They shouldn't ever be given unchecked power.

    37. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Where's the illegality?

      Implied threat of government legal action if they don't comply. Blackmail in other words. Unless they've actually informed the person their will be no direct consequences if they don't comply. 99% of the population would have little to no idea about whether any particular government official can legally do what they do.

    38. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure you can, but the majority of voters appear to be saying "You two, please take turns to fuck me ".

      Term-limits in the USA is just enforced gang-banging ;).

    39. Re:A reasonable stance by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Funny

      >>>disappear your ass and throw you in Guantanamo Bay

      Now that's crazy. No way could the Homeland SA get away with throwing a natural-born citizen into some random prison without trial.

      --
      My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    40. Re:A reasonable stance by zippthorne · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've argued on the wrong side of this, too, but the fact is that if DHS doesn't care about the law, then you should not make things easier for them by complying, and further opening yourself up to the risk of greater infractions. And if they do care about the law, then it shouldn't hurt you to refuse the search.

      Plus, if you've got nothing to hide, then getting searched is just a waste of everyone's time.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    41. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, unless the DHS agents said "screw you and the Fourth Amendment, we're going to search you anyway!", then it sounds as if they obeyed the law just fine. They're allowed to ask you for permission to search your vehicle, and you have the right to say no. Where's the illegality?

      I got the impression from the GP that no search occurred, and GP was satisfied with that outcome, despite his friend's fear. That is, Friend interpreted even the request to search as a threat. Many people consider it a formality, and if Authority asks, it's really "asking" but you have no power to refuse. One periodically hears that refusal might be deemed reasonable grounds for suspicion and thus obviate the need for permission. My sense was that GP was exercising his right to refuse with the expectation that Authority would, in fact, act legally and not search the vehicle, thus demonstrating that all is well with the world.

    42. Re:A reasonable stance by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2

      Not entirely.

      It is also possible to have a system whereby justice occurs in the end as a result of the pre-set rules of the Universe and a large enough amount of repetitions (re-incarnations and the like).

      It is also possible that such conditions do not require an omni-potent creator, merely one with great foresight or even just a random chance at the outset of things.

    43. Re:A reasonable stance by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2

      Do you believe in Cause & Effect? If so, then you believe in karma

      Sorry. Karma is about mystical/supernatural cause and effect. While some people may think that their good deeds are causing their good luck, the closest it gets to that in reality is that treating some one nicely might encourage that person to treat you nicely. Otherwise, cause and effect is a measurable physical process.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
    44. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's both historically ignorant and profoundly offensive to a lot of people to assume that you have a superior understanding of world events. Speaking down to other people doesn't raise you up.

      You might want to read the page you linked, "a career of evil the likes of which I hope to never again see" doesn't fit the SA very well. Unless you are laying all of the atrocities later committed by the Nazi's at their feet due to the SA being instrumental in ushering Hitler into power.

    45. Re:A reasonable stance by PitaBred · · Score: 5, Interesting

      National security? It's never been about security. It's always been about money. Those x-rays at airports don't make us any safer, but they sure made a bundle for the companies that make them.

    46. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you believe in Cause & Effect? If so, then you believe in karma

      Sorry. Karma is about mystical/supernatural cause and effect.

      Raj: (to Leonard) You completely screwed up your karma, dude.
      Sheldon: You don't really believe in that superstition, do you?
      Raj: It's not superstition; it's practically Newtonian. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Leonard pretends to be a friend and acts like a two-faced bitch. Therefore, he is reborn as a banana slug. It's actually a very elegant system.

    47. Re:A reasonable stance by snero3 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I agreed with you up until I read Now I'm willing to bend that a little bit, like if a mass murderer just escaped from prison at no time should the Law be bent. It doesn't matter what the reason is. If the law is wrong, make a new one, vote it in etc... Bending the law just to suit a certain situation is stupid.

      --
      It said "windows 98 or better" so I installed Linux
    48. Re:A reasonable stance by Nursie · · Score: 2

      I'm not really either.

      Which either makes me a handsome rebel or a completely irrelevant misanthrope.

      Unfortunately I'm pretty sure it's the latter!

    49. Re:A reasonable stance by ifiwereasculptor · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, that'd be really unprecedented. Maybe if you're a little arab-looking or you happen to have a muslim friend...

    50. Re:A reasonable stance by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 2

      You've outed yourself as a nut.

    51. Re:A reasonable stance by Think+less! · · Score: 0

      treating some one nicely might encourage that person to treat you nicely

      You are right, that is an example of cause and effect, and it's an example of karma. Nothing supernatural about it. That was your point, right?

      Karma is about mystical/supernatural cause and effect.

      Who ever told you that karma has to be supernatural? How much of your view was formed through personal exploration versus conditioned semantics impressed upon you by friends or other social constructs? Karma is observable in the most obvious facets of life. Some people see it at a much deeper, more subtle level too.

      Otherwise, cause and effect is a measurable physical process.

      Only in the most simple cases. Do you honestly think that you or any other human can measure the most complex cause and effect relationships that the universe has to offer? HaHa!

      I'm hoping that what you really meant to address is the situations in which people tend to see only the effect portion of karma while living in ignorance to the cause portion of it. That is a delusional approach to karma.

    52. Re:A reasonable stance by hoboroadie · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Homeland Security is just practicing their shutdown technology so that they can control the flow of information, in case the "Arab Spring" spreads to the United States.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    53. Re:A reasonable stance by sumdumass · · Score: 0

      The first amendment doesn't give you the right to violate all laws.

      And your right, you don't need a website to download. On the other hand, you need the equivalent of those websites to locate the downloads you want. Hence how removing the downloads stops the majority of people from downloading.

    54. Re:A reasonable stance by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      Which either makes me a handsome rebel or a completely irrelevant misanthrope.

      I used to be a handsome rebel, then I finally realized that The People are stupid and unworthy; Now I am in fact a completely irrelevant misanthrope, I realized it after Peter Tork pointed out that I was a cynic. I was quite happy-go-lucky as a kid.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    55. Re:A reasonable stance by Puff_Of_Hot_Air · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think you would find Kohlberg's stages of moral development an interesting read. In essence, most people are at Stage 4, which essentially is "belief in authority". Unfortunately, there are as many Stage 2 "I'm just in it for myself" arseholes as there are Stage 5 and Stage 6 "Only the just laws should be obeyed" enlightened thinkers. We need more people to level up.

    56. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, unless the DHS agents said "screw you and the Fourth Amendment, we're going to search you anyway!", then it sounds as if they obeyed the law just fine. They're allowed to ask you for permission to search your vehicle, and you have the right to say no. Where's the illegality?

      The part where denying them permission to search the vehicle gives them "probable cause" and they go ahead and search it anyway. My personal favorite is when denying them permission results in you spending the rest of the weekend in jail. They either get their warrant on Monday when the judge is in, or if the judge denies their request they finally release you with no charges filed. Its a great way to spend the weekend.

    57. Re:A reasonable stance by sessamoid · · Score: 2

      I read it as meaning what action the OP would take, not law enforcement. As in, "I would not normally consent to such a search without a warrant, except in extenuating circumstances, such as a mass murderer who recently escaped."

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    58. Re:A reasonable stance by sessamoid · · Score: 1

      I think you would find Kohlberg's stages of moral development an interesting read. In essence, most people are at Stage 4, which essentially is "belief in authority". Unfortunately, there are as many Stage 2 "I'm just in it for myself" arseholes as there are Stage 5 and Stage 6 "Only the just laws should be obeyed" enlightened thinkers. We need more people to level up.

      That's the first time I've seen the term "level up" used in terms of the stages of moral development. Funny as hell.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    59. Re:A reasonable stance by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      2a. What proportion of seized sites have been upheld by a court of law to have unlawful or illegal. (ie, how many seizures were legally justifiable?)

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    60. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people would be uncomfortable having Weyland Yutani overseeing things.

    61. Re:A reasonable stance by voidphoenix · · Score: 2

      Where's the illegality?

      Implied threat of government legal action if they don't comply. Blackmail in other words. Unless they've actually informed the person their will be no direct consequences if they don't comply. 99% of the population would have little to no idea about whether any particular government official can legally do what they do.

      And therein lies the problem. People get the government they deserve. In the middle east (and many other places before), the people decided they deserved more. Some of them died for it and probably many more after. In the end, it's about what kind of abuse the people are willing to tolerate and what they're willing to risk for change.

    62. Re:A reasonable stance by KeithIrwin · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not quite as many as you think. If you'd like some more specific scientific insight into this, I would highly recommend that you read this free e-book by a psychology professor who has spent the last several decades studying these sort of issues. It's a really easy read and I guarantee that you'll learn some new things about authoritarian followers that you didn't know.

    63. Re:A reasonable stance by VortexCortex · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The first amendment doesn't give you the right to violate all laws.

      Likewise: Copyright has no right to violate my first amendment rights. Have you read the Constitution? search for the phrase "congress shall make no law", then read up and get back to me...

      Additionally: Three words, PEER TO PEER. This is really how the entire Internet works: at the packet level, we're all peers & there is no "client" or "server" (that's application level thinking); Ergo, taking down servers can also mean taking down clients, and until it does, and you have a workable solution to the Streisand Effect, bans will do nothing but piss people off and cause more of whatever behavior triggered the ban in the first place. (We're all servers).

      In short: damage from censorship will always be routed around until instant-bans of all information holding parties is possible and in practice. However, once that happens, there are much bigger problems to deal with, eg: FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS.

      I can encode any information as a rather large decimal (base 10) number, numbers can't be patented or copyrighted. In fact, I've even written a program that encodes and decodes in such a way (arbitrary bit-length & radix integer math) -- It's terribly inefficient in decimal mode; in Hexadecimal (base 16) it's blazingly fast, but it doubles the output size... You can avoid the size bloat by encoding & decoding your NUMBERS in base 2 --- Oh, wait binary numbers are what's claimed as infringing copyright. (How is this not a 1st amendment issue?)

      The great thing about math is that adding some large number, then subtracting it later yields the exact same origin number, and numbers can be represented in any base but still remain equivalent. XOR, multiplication, division & subtraction are all also reverse-able. My big-math package doesn't blink twice when you tell it to add the fractional component of PI to say, a Be-Dulls.MP3 file, minding the input's significant digits when limiting output... Subtraction of the same yields the original information...

      Should I be prohibited from distributing PI's remainder + some arbitrary value? Isn't that a substantial transformation, and doesn't the resulting output rely much more heavily on my addition and transformation than the original? If I'm prohibited from distributing such a number in totality, can I be prevented from distributing individual bits or digits one at a time a few times per day via twitter? Surely a small fraction of decimal digits transformed to be unusable for the original data's purpose is not a copyright infringement, it's fair use, and would be a violation of my 1st amendment right to restrict me in such a way -- All digits can be represented as some be-dulls.mp3 byte + or - some other digit...

      Surely breaking the info up and transmitting it + (PI-3) renders it a separate work, no-longer coverable by copyright... You can't copyright a single word, ergo a single bit is even less subject to copyright (if not, I claim Zero! -- no monopoly here!).

      How large of a piece of data is a copyrightable? 4 bits? Surely not, 1024 bytes? 1500 bytes? Surely not, in terms of a song this is just a fraction of a second of music, clearly a fair-use.

      So, If I'm allowed to distribute 1500 bytes at a time, and transformed by an arbitrary integer math operation, what's to say I can't also claim fair use on each 1500 byte SSL XORed Internet packet?

      AT WHAT POINT DOES MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH END?
      To say that copyrights do not limit freedom of speech is moronic at best -- That's exactly what copyrights do; Perhaps they were never intended to do so -- In that case, let's reform or obliterate the offensive laws. Pehaps you don't see what's going on in the summary? The government is trying to get people to restrict the freedom of speech rights of others voluntarily, because they have no legal authority to do so

    64. Re:A reasonable stance by clang_jangle · · Score: 1

      It's interesting that the feds think going after a redirector browser plugin is worthwhile. Maybe it's a preview of how "thorough" they plan to be in the future. If DNS blocking/misdirecting is all they've got, this should be even more futile that the War On Drugs.

      We really need to get some of that military budget re-purposed for education -- for gov't employees first!

      --
      Caveat Utilitor
    65. Re:A reasonable stance by richlv · · Score: 1

      wasn't that meant to be "security agent" or somesuch ? at least that's how i read it.

      --
      Rich
    66. Re:A reasonable stance by sFurbo · · Score: 3, Informative

      I can encode any information as a rather large decimal (base 10) number, numbers can't be patented or copyrighted. In fact, I've even written a program that encodes and decodes in such a way (arbitrary bit-length & radix integer math) -- It's terribly inefficient in decimal mode; in Hexadecimal (base 16) it's blazingly fast, but it doubles the output size... You can avoid the size bloat by encoding & decoding your NUMBERS in base 2 --- Oh, wait binary numbers are what's claimed as infringing copyright. (How is this not a 1st amendment issue?)

      If I understand copyright law correctly (yeah, fat chance), numbers can be copyrighted if sufficient creativity* has been necessary to produce it. If you need, say, a book in order to produce the number, all of the creativity used in producing that book is needed to produce your number, so yes, it can be covered by copyright. I think http://ansuz.sooke.bc.ca/entry/23 covers the points of your post pretty decently.

      *Probably not the right word, but I don't know the English equivalent of the Danish "værkshøjde".

    67. Re:A reasonable stance by opus_magnum · · Score: 1

      "MafiaaFire Redirector hasn't any build-in list of redirected sites. MafiaaFire Redirector download the "redirect list" from 4 websites:
      http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list.php
      http://ifucksexygirls.com/xml-update/xml-list2.php
      http://ezee.se/xml-update/xml-list3.php
      http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list1.php"

      Three of which don't work (anymore?).

    68. Re:A reasonable stance by grahamm · · Score: 2

      Not forgetting "Freedom of the Press". Should publishing web pages not be the modern day equivalent to the 'press' in the days when the 1st amendment was written. In those days the 'press' did not consist of multi-national media conglomerate (as it largely does today), but lots of small local Mon 'n' Pop outfits with printing presses.

    69. Re:A reasonable stance by sFurbo · · Score: 1

      Seconded, that is a great book. I was going to suggest it here, but as KeithIrwin has already been done that, I will just say "go read that book".

    70. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SA goes to far. Nevertheless:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heimat
      second paragraph.

      As a German speaker, the name "Homeland security" has a nationalistic feeling about it that makes me very uncomfortable. (The wiki claims homeland is not exactly the same, but I personally thing it comes close enough).

      I guess Americans are not burdened by this but I can well understand the connection made by the OP.

    71. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Israeli government (and its US poodle) calls everybody under the sun 'Hitler'. Are their actions also "historically ignorant and profoundly offensive to a lot of people"?

    72. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought Karma was more something like a law, not actually an "authority".
      Would you say you are under the authority of the gravity law ?

    73. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By that logic, i couldn't liken the number 27 to the number 63 and claim that the 27 had come some way on the same track as the 63.

    74. Re:A reasonable stance by migla · · Score: 1

      Many, if not most humans seem to be authoritarians, who are comforted by the idea of some all powerful authority overseeing things, be it God, the Government, Karma, or the Company. When it looks as though they are not actually authoritarians, it is usually just because they don't like that particular authority. Show them one they like and they will fall all over themselves kissing its ass.

      It sure can seem that way, but from another perspective, you could see it as authorities taking advantage of the human trait of wanting to belong together, a very social and beautiful trait.

      The desire to flock and get along is perverted by ideas of otherness of varying kinds as a threat to the group. A common enemy will unite. Leaders can fuel these sentiments.

      Fuck. I thought I could be cheery, but I don't know... At least, even if most people are authoritarians at heart, there are still plenty of people that just want to give you peace and love.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
    75. Re:A reasonable stance by Synonymous+Homonym · · Score: 1

      When it looks as though they are not actually authoritarians, it is usually just because they don't like that particular authority.

      Are they allowed to do that?

    76. Re:A reasonable stance by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2

      How about Department of Fatherland Security instead?

    77. Re:A reasonable stance by WNight · · Score: 1

      Fuck the government.

      You've outed yourself as a nut.

      Depends on which government and where. It's certainly appropriate for the Libyan government and anyone supporting them. It's probably valid in Bahrain, and Yemen. It'd be reasonable anywhere the government was killing people, especially in large numbers.

    78. Re:A reasonable stance by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Or maybe SA just stands for "Security Agency"

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    79. Re:A reasonable stance by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      OMG finally the nutjobs claiming that they shot bin ladens twin brother show up here. get a clue retard.... They capped D.J. Binnie Laden's arse yo! He will not be releasing any more albums.

      And we really did go to the moon.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    80. Re:A reasonable stance by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      The Patriot act does not give them the right to violate the constitution willy nilly without DUE PROCESS... Oh wait, the Patriot Act took that away as well....

      Repeal the Patriot Act and these problems go away.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    81. Re:A reasonable stance by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      If I Rot13 that book all the numbers have changed and the copyright has been invalidated.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    82. Re:A reasonable stance by Tim+C · · Score: 2

      If there are that many cases, and your entire argument rests upon that being true, you really should provide links to evidence; otherwise people are just going to dismiss you as a nut.

    83. Re:A reasonable stance by Lumpy · · Score: 1

      Your former classmate is the BULK of Americans right now and that bulk is growing...

      Search me and cup my scrotum for security... I want to feel safe...
      Search my car I have nothing to hide.
      Search my home I have nothing to hide.

      Put cameras in my home to protect me.
      Put a box in my car to make sure I dont speed...

      I love big brother....

      Most people are major sheep, they will gladly do what they are told if someone that seems important tells them to do it. They are perfect comrades.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    84. Re:A reasonable stance by exekewtable · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you follow the money, I think you will find it is also in the direction of stopping people transporting large amounts of cash and valuables in and out of the country. Nothing to do with terrorism at all.

    85. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Israeli government has *what* exactly to do with that? Sorry for stepping on your little soapbox.

    86. Re:A reasonable stance by tehcyder · · Score: 2

      Homeland Security is just practicing their shutdown technology so that they can control the flow of information, in case the "Arab Spring" spreads to the United States.

      Yes, you poor oppressed Americans are in dire need of a revolution to oust the evil Obama dictator who has been clinging onto power despite being discredited both nationally and internationally, and relying on the widespread torture and murder of his own people. You are crying out to the free world "help us, please God just help us" and so far we just sem to be turning a blind eye. Surely now is the time we should be sending military support to those brave few opposing the tyrant.

      Or you could, you know, vote him out next year.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    87. Re:A reasonable stance by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      As a non-US citizen I find it pretty incredible that the same intelligence agency-like governmental institution DHS appears to be responsible both for finding and dealing with >3000-times terrorist mass murderers and with persecuting a bunch of file sharers. I mean, honestly, shouldn't the latter be a matter for the local police? Why would a freaking "Über"-intelligence agency like the DHS be allowed to deal with petty cases of copyright infringement?

      WTF has happened to the US?

    88. Re:A reasonable stance by TheSpoom · · Score: 1

      Ignorantia juris non excusat. It doesn't just apply to people committing crimes.

      --
      It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
      - E. Debs
    89. Re:A reasonable stance by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Didn't you know, pirated software is full of malware, this causes a security risk and must be stopped /sarcasm

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    90. Re:A reasonable stance by acoustix · · Score: 2

      It has nothing to do with Obama (and I'm a conservative). The US government will continue to strip away civil liberties regardless of who is in power. The US government is bigger than the office of the President.

      --
      "A plan fiendishly clever in its intricacies"- Homer Simpson
    91. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you, but I'd like to point out that not all legal searches require a warrant.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Exceptions_to_the_warrant_requirement

    92. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, perhaps they're not the "Homeland SA", but they certainly are RSHA. It's hard to say they're not when their names are the same.

      Reich = rulership, equivalent to "Homeland" in this case
      Sicherheit = security
      Haupt = head
      Amt = office

      The Head Office of Reich Security. Sounds a lot like the Department of Homeland Security.

    93. Re:A reasonable stance by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Copyright hasn't been invalidated if you do that; you would have just created a derivative work. Copyright isn't particularly about what you have, it's about how you obtained/constructed it.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    94. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course, YOU'D say that. You're probably a Nazi.

    95. Re:A reasonable stance by i · · Score: 1

      Quite right. They rather be called "Homeland SS" .

      --
      Mundus Vult Decipi
    96. Re:A reasonable stance by archmedes5 · · Score: 1

      They can ask, you can say no and they'd be obligated to refrain from searching your vehicle. They can also suspend or revoke your driver's license for refusing since that doesn't require due process.

    97. Re:A reasonable stance by swb · · Score: 1

      The local cops don't care because they don't see a crime being committed against any local entity.

      Furthermore, the media conglomerates see it as a national/global threat, not a local threat, so they want some kind of Federal entity involved.

      The reason DHS gets involved is the media conglomerates like DHS-style power. So they call legislators who they have donated to heavily who also wield influence over DHS via committees or purse strings.

      The legislators call DHS, insist that DHS should do something about this as it represents some kind of "homeland security threat" with subtle intimations about upcoming hearings, budget requests, etc.

      DHS sees the political writing on the wall and gets involved.

      My sense is DHS probably doesn't really care too much about this issue but at some bureaucratic level they think its good politics and it allows them to stake claims over new territory that they know, at some point, someone will claim and they hope that by being there first they can establish a de facto claim.

      When someone comes close to challenging their power over the issue, they will then point at the history and "success" they have had in that sphere and get legislation passed making their claim de jure as well.

    98. Re:A reasonable stance by The+Moof · · Score: 1

      Term-limits in the USA is just enforced gang-banging ;).

      The only federally held position with term limits is the president. Some folks think that Congress should have term limits as well. Personally, I don't like the unlimited term positions (aka "appointed for life") in the government, especially since they're also the positions of highest power.

    99. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      Depends on how you imagine Karma. Is it simply "there are always consequences when whit happens," a restatement of the law of cause and effect? Or does karma work to restore some sort of moral balance, ensuring good things happen to good people, and bad things to bad people? If the latter, then karma is a moral authority, deciding what is right and wrong. It's a way of imagining that the universe has a moral compass without having agency or personality.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    100. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      Awesome, my library carries it, I will reserve it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    101. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      Most people misunderstand karma to be a force working to restore moral balance, and I was basing what I wrote on how most people view karma, not on what I believe to be the correct interpretation of the meaning of karma.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    102. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      If authoritarians live in a society that promotes peace and love, then that is what they will try to practice. We're all both devils and saints. We have the capacity for good and evil in us, and it is mere circumstance that determines whether the good side of our nature wins out. But good is, I think, the default behavior for most of us, unless our society is inherently unjust, and we feel the need to act selfishly in order not to be taken advantage of. I've heard a theory that states that there are really only two human cultures in the world, the culture of feast, and the culture of famine, and that basically, we got locked into the culture of famine when we began practicing agriculture and animal husbandry, lost our mobility, and then got hit with climate change. Check out "Saharasia" by James DeMeo.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    103. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 0

      Authoritarians hate it when we point out that authoritarianism exists. We aren't supposed to think about it, we're just supposed to do it.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    104. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      implied threat is not illegal. Perhaps immoral and deceptive, but not illegal. Also, "implied threat" is generally placed by the person being asked, as in the DHS probably didn't say there would be repurcussions, but the "victim" probably assumed there would be without reason.

    105. Re:A reasonable stance by gknoy · · Score: 1

      The time and place to settle those, and similar, differences of opinion is in court. You settle those differences of opinion with polite words, articles in the newspaper, recall petitions against the DA and mayor, and civil rights lawsuits against the town. You do not settle those issues with bullets and fists. Not just because the cops have an infinite supply of both, but because it's just plain uncivilized for grown adults to settle their differences that way. Soap box, ballot box, jury box, ammo box. In that order.

      That is one of the best worded explanations of civil behavior when faced with potential misconduct I've ever read. Thank you.

    106. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      14. Why does God need a starship? ZAP!

    107. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonamused+Cow-herd · · Score: 1

      Yup, that's how I read it, too. Reading comprehension!

      "I refused to let my car be searched by the Homeland Security Agent."

      vs

      "I refused to let my car be searched by the Homeland GODWIN GODWIN GODWIN"

      --
      -----[0_o]-----
      We are not amused.
    108. Re:A reasonable stance by sjames · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't be surprised (but I wasn't there so I can only guess) that it was the typical police method of make the request sound like a command and imply as hard as you can that the person is legally bound to comply without actually saying so (since they're not). It's not actually illegal but it's not quite ethical either. I have a right to expect my government to behave ethically.

    109. Re:A reasonable stance by sabt-pestnu · · Score: 1

      The "Arab Spring" is asking dictators to step down in favor of publicly accountable democracy. So if the leader of our country is already publicly accountable even if not always elected, what are we going to do? Revolt in favor of a dictator?

    110. Re:A reasonable stance by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      The constitution does not protect you from the implied threat of government legal action. The constitution does not protect you from all government legal action. The constitution does not protect you from government legal action unless it lacks due process.

      You have a right to due process. You do not have a right to not go through the process. You never have, and you never will unless you move off to the land of nature, where human law does not apply. You will not find this place, as it does not exist.

    111. Re:A reasonable stance by Miqel · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that these are not "tough questions" at all. The DHS should have included every single bit of this information when they served the request. Every law enforcement agency in this country thinks "because I said so" is good enough.

    112. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm from the U.S. but I can't hear "Homeland" without thinking of "Fatherland". Just sayin'.

    113. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. Because reading it will challenge your world-view instead of just reinforcing your confirmation bias.

    114. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      Interesting guess. What makes you think so?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    115. Re:A reasonable stance by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      in FTP one can obtain a list of files to download by typing the command DIR. HTML of any flavour is never considered.

    116. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting guess. What makes you think so?

      (I'm the original AC)

      Because of posts like this one or this one. There are others in your history as well that demonstrate your ideological bent. You are, however, a prolific poster and I'm going from memory for other examples instead of citing examples by searching through the entirety of your posts.

      Bob Altemeyer's book(s) are rife with logical fallacies, speculation, lack of citation, ignorance and just plain hatred for different viewpoints. Here is a counterpoint to his writing.

      I don't believe that you will come to his writing with any sort of objectivity, thus my original sarcastic comment about it [not] challenging your world-view.

    117. Re:A reasonable stance by ghettoimp · · Score: 1

      99% of the population would have little to no idea about whether any particular government official can legally do what they do.

      That's sort of their own fault, eh?

    118. Re:A reasonable stance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many, if not most humans seem to be authoritarians, who are comforted by the idea of some all powerful authority overseeing things, be it God, the Government, Karma, or the Company. When it looks as though they are not actually authoritarians, it is usually just because they don't like that particular authority. Show them one they like and they will fall all over themselves kissing its ass.

      It is hard to see Karma as an authority in the context you use it. Karma is simply cause and effect. Much as Newton said, "To every action there is always an equal and opposite reaction" (with the exception of it applied more liberally). Karma is not an authoritarian overseer saying, "Do this and this or else I will punish you with my wrath!" like the rest of your examples are.

    119. Re:A reasonable stance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Likewise: Copyright has no right to violate my first amendment rights. Have you read the Constitution? search for the phrase "congress shall make no law", then read up and get back to me...

      I have read it have you? Of course not otherwise you would know that the US constitution give congress the ability to create copyright and enforce it. Go ahead, search for it then get back to me.

      I hate it when idiots go off half cocked with no understanding about what in the hell they are dealing with.

      The rest of your dribble is an off topic rant that seems to be factually incorrect in a few places too. Oh watch out, it looks like you got some spittle on your chin. Anyways, I'm not going to bother replying to that.

    120. Re:A reasonable stance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Yes, but how to you obtain a list of FTP servers to which you will visit and apply that knowledge?

    121. Re:A reasonable stance by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What part of the constitution did those domain seizures violate? As far as I know, they all had a court order to do what they did.

      I had a motorcycle stolen from me back when I was 19. They caught the rider two counties away and seized the bike as evidence. They had a court order holding it for whatever they needed to do and I had to get another to gain it's release. Are you telling me that a court order to seize property connected to breaking the law is not constitutional?

    122. Re:A reasonable stance by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      A revolt in favor of democracy was violently put down here in the '70s. Some superficial concessions were made, but cooler heads have prevailed and our Fearless Leaders have consolidated their power to the point where the majority are now feeling the pinch. It's very complex, but if you actually think free enterprise is working then I can't help you anyway. I don't have the answer but at least I realize we ain't there yet, and we're going the wrong way.

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    123. Re:A reasonable stance by andymadigan · · Score: 1

      I'm a liberal who voted for Obama and I agree with this statement. Good to know both sides can agree on certain things.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    124. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      In many people's minds, karma absolutely is saying "Do this and this or I will punish you with my wrath." Many people believe that the concept of karma means that, if I do bad things to you, bad things will happen to you. What karma really means is simply cause and effect, as you say: if I do bad things to you, bad things will happen to you.

      If indeed the concept of karma is that, if I do bad things to you, bad things will happen to me, then karma is nothing more than an authoritarian overseer saying, "Do this and this or else I will punish you with my wrath!" And that is how most people see karma, and why Buddha rejected the common idea of karma as it relates to reincarnation. When you add "reincarnated as a slug" into the possibilities, then absolutely, karma is an authoritarian overseer saying, "Do this and this or else I will punish you with by turning you into a slug!"

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    125. Re:A reasonable stance by spun · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you are an authoritarian, defending authoritarianism. That's what I thought.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    126. Re:A reasonable stance by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Gopher?

  2. If they do this it will destroy mozilla by assemblerex · · Score: 1

    Once you go hand-in-hand with the beast there's no going back.

  3. This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

    Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

    1. Re:This will drive a record number of people by locallyunscene · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm trying it out.

      Streisand Effect is go.

    2. Re:This will drive a record number of people by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

      Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

      Wish I could; where the heck is it? I don't see it on the Mozilla website. I could certainly just download it from MAFIAAFire.com or whatever, but shouldn't it be there too?

    3. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Groo+Wanderer · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I don't go to 'seized' sites, and have never been to one. I have no reason to go, but the ICE's illegal actions, not to mention the MAFIAA's, make me fundamentally distrust my own government.

      Like many others, I just installed the plugin. And will promote it. Yay to teh intertubes.

                  -Charlie

    4. Re:This will drive a record number of people by vgerclover · · Score: 2

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/ (Taken from first link at the second link of the summary.)

    5. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There you go:
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/

    6. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I have no reason to go [to seized sites]

      This is a strange way to look at it, since it presumes that you know something about what sites whose names may be seized. I can understand that, since the seizures are currently being characterized as being for anti-piracy purposes, so if you're not into piracy, it makes sense to believe this won't affect you.

      But as usual with runaway government, one of the main reasons people are so pissed about this has more to do with the lack of due process than the stated agenda itself. You don't know that only "bad" sites will be seized, because no one is overseeing the seizures and watching the watchers. You only have their word that they've only been interfering with piracy-related sites, therefore you only have their word that you have no reason to go to the kinds of sites which may be seized. This is purely an article of faith, and really has nothing to do with the kinds of sites that you visi-- oh, wait, I get it. You only go to pro-government-religion sites. Aha. Ok, never mind, I believe you now.

    7. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This will drive a record number of people to install the plug in...

      Thanks DHS, we appreciate the endorsement and confirmation of its efficacy!!!

      I was vaguely aware of this, but didn't think to much about it.

      Now?

      Plugin installed.

    8. Re:This will drive a record number of people by SteveFoerster · · Score: 1

      We had the same response. I didn't know about it either, but now I have someone new to like.

      --
      Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
    9. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shit was cash

    10. Re:This will drive a record number of people by pla · · Score: 2

      I'd never heard of it before, but now I'm trying it out. Streisand Effect is go.

      Ditto, and more than that - I now have a convenient list of websites Uncle Sam doesn't want me to see. Care to guess where I'll spend my next week's worth of casual browsing?

      Thank you, DHS. Without this particularly poor choice of targets, I likely never would have stumbled across a single one of these sites you've decided to unlawfully attack. Keep 'em comin', though - Always good to knowing my enemy's enemies.

    11. Re:This will drive a record number of people by aztracker1 · · Score: 1

      Well there were like 84000 sites ceized, most I would say without merit.

      --
      Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
    12. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course bigsite.com won't ever be affected by these abusive domain seizures, but obscuresite.com might. Not everybody uses bigsite.com.

    13. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And now the slashdot effect too. Good going DHS.

    14. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never heard of it before, but I had hoped for another functionality: Preventing me to spent time on websites of the MAFIAA. Presenting me with a nice stop sign instead that remembers me that they had the same idea and it is hurting them now.

    15. Re:This will drive a record number of people by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/ (Taken from first link at the second link of the summary.)

      Yes, I found it eventually myself. My point was that the search function on Mozilla's own site couldn't find it, nor was it listed in any of the category browsing options. Are they trying to black-hole the add-on by making it hard to find, or does it take that long to update their database?

    16. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't find it. Maybe it was actually removed

    17. Re:This will drive a record number of people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Worked for me, and I never even heard of it before today!

  4. DHS chose the wrong people by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Of all places, why would the DHS think that Mozilla would cooperate with their domain seizure program?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by assemblerex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because DHS exists in a fantasy land where everything in the world serves the interests of the United States and her wealthy ruling class. Disagree and we'll send a few hookers to blow you, then claim rape and extradite you to Guantanamo.

    2. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by X0563511 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      rant on: (I agree with you assemblerex, this is not voiced at you)

      Yea, because people with different morals than the population at large are such a risk to National Security that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. ... what the FUCK people!?

      OK, I get that you think Child Porn is wrong. I personally agree, but even so, what the fuck does that have to do with National Security? The same can be asked about media piracy! You might as well just say it: you're all equating MP3 downloads to terrorism or treason. Once more. What the FUCK!?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    3. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by joe_frisch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey - I'm, a member of the US "wealthy ruling class" and DHS doesn't serve my interests! I think Mozilla acted completely appropriately.

      I think our freedom from unlawful seizure, and our freedom of speech is more important than tracking down people swapping stolen entertainment content,or distributing child porn. (assuming that DHS's actions even helped with either of those - something I'm not sure I believe).

    4. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 2

      Becaue Pakistan hiding Bin Laden is less important than Joey age 17 getting fondled. Lights Out.

      Another piece elsewhere profiled a 3 year Seattle infiltration case for big dollars that really didn't do much.

      We seriously need to shake up Big Gov, but it's getting harder.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    5. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The claims I have seen is that media piracy, counterfeit goods, and child porn are being sold by groups who then use them to fund terrorism and other anti-American activities. That said, counterfeit goods I could see, child porn less so, but media piracy from torrent sites and streaming sites? Yeah, giving stuff away for free really helps to fund terrorism.

    6. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Becaue Pakistan hiding Bin Laden is less important than Joey age 17 getting fondled. Lights Out.

      If this was true then the head of DHS and all the TSA staff who sexually assault and film the sexual assaults of adults and children at airports would have been shot in the same manner as Bin Laden by law enforcement - or at the very least jailed. Ergo it isnt.

    7. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      No offense, but if someone is actually a member of the "wealthy ruling class", they aren't posing on /. You sir... are the middle class, because only the middle class likes to think of themselves as uber wealthy while still posting on /.

    8. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yea, because people with different morals than the population at large are such a risk to National Security that the Department of Homeland Security should be involved. ...

      'Department of Homeland Security' was much easier to ram rod through Congress than "Department of Pretty Much Everything and the Kitchen Sink that isn't Covered by the Other Big Departments'. It has nothing to do with security (that should be obvious). Gotta have a catchy title these days or it just doesn't fly.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    9. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by joe_frisch · · Score: 2

      How wealthy and how small is this "wealthy ruling class". You are talking more than people who made a killing on stock options during the internet boom? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a few ultra-wealthy ex-nerds post on slashdot, though possibly anonymously.

    10. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by dcollins · · Score: 2

      Granted that (a) 99 places in 100 will comply immediately, and (b) it costs next to nothing to send a request like this out, the cost/benefit analysis is (sadly) in favor of sending the request prior to anyone even spending time making a judgment about the character of the specific institution. That's a Tier 2 job.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    11. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by wierd_w · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I personally consider the rather deep and blatant connection between big media and "National Security" to be a direct [defacto] admission that the US government feels it is in danger of severe insolvency if the intellectual property cartels are broken, and/or, leave the US.

      It is one of the forms of handwriting on the wall that I mention when I say that the US is mortally ill, and in serious danger of economic implosion.

      Heavy handed DHS actions like this on behalf of this industry without proper due process would seem to be an indication of just how serious the insolvency problem actually is. That is why it is a "national security" issue.

      I do not know whether to take comfort in this insight, or to cower in fear at the notion that the economic fortunes of millions of americans might well hinge on the success or failure of a fundementally defective business model, due to the cumulative impact of many short-sighted politicians and corporate empires and their policies.

      Frighteningly enough, it would clearly explain the recent behavior my nation has had on the world stage concerning the adoption and enforcement of draconian worldwide DMCA-Like laws, and heavy handed activities using ICANN.

      That said, as terrible as the consequences would be, I actually DO hope that the DHS is UNSUCCESSFUL, and that the cartels are broken through public dissent, as per tools like the subject of this article, and outspoken civil defiance as seen in the population of Canada. (God I love the citizens of Canada. They are doing the world an unbeleivable favor by being so resolute.)

      The kind of future that would come out of a strongly enforced worldwide DMCA is not the kind of future I want to live in. I would rather see my nation fall, and have the damage contained, than see the very fundemental attribute that makes humans special (Creative intellect, and the freedom to create and share ideas) regulated for monetary purposes of a tiny few, at the expense of the whole world's freedom for EVERYONE else.

      Well done Mozilla! Ask those hard questions! Put feet to fire! I applaud your efforts!

    12. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think if mozilla has to comply they should blacklist all government issued SSL certificates in the process...

    13. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by russotto · · Score: 2

      How wealthy and how small is this "wealthy ruling class". You are talking more than people who made a killing on stock options during the internet boom? I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that a few ultra-wealthy ex-nerds post on slashdot, though possibly anonymously.

      Ultra-wealthy nerds (likely not ex- at all) aren't generally part of the wealthy ruling class; they remain mere nouveau riche until they figure out how to use their money to buy a strong position in the relevant legislatures. This they almost have to do eventually, or the actual ruling class will use their legislative position to separate the nerd from his wealth.

    14. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      sorry... you aren't on the list

    15. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like Chris Rock said: Shaq is rich, the guy who signs Shaq's paycheck is wealthy.

    16. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      then you are not as wealthy as you think you are.

    17. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 3, Funny

      But, don't you see?? The media pirates are not spending money on the stuff they STEAL, and that means they have more disposable income to give to the TERRORISTS!!!

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    18. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm, a member of the US "wealthy ruling class"

      Yeah, I'm a member too, but you and I have opinions that make us a minority within a minority. So GP is still correct in that it does serve the interests of the wealthy few, whether you and I like it or not.

    19. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by shentino · · Score: 1

      Someone like this?

      http://fatpita.net/?i=537

    20. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Thing+1 · · Score: 2

      How wealthy and how small is this "wealthy ruling class".

      50% of US dollars; 1% of US population.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    21. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      If you're not living in Washington with a 7+ figure bank account and numerous political connections, you aren't in the wealthy ruling class.

    22. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That's almost like saying 'if your picture doesn't appear on some of the 'Community Chest' cards in the Monopoly game you're not in the wealthy class.

      That is to say: cut out the dumb stereotyping. Rich scum are all over.

    23. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      'Hey - I'm, a member of the US "wealthy ruling class"'

      Unless your personal wealth is measured in at least 10s of millions, you're not.

    24. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by ildon · · Score: 1

      For the same reason that they think they have the right to seize the domains in the first place: they're idiots with power.

    25. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we have a violent youth because many parents are scared of being too nice to their children at the moment... (Having listened to a conversation between a daycare worker and a child I can feel their fear: "Your dad gives you hugs?!? How long is the hug? I don't think that is ok". I think dads should be allowed to give their kids a hug and the feeling someone cares for them (Not sure on the time response of the kid, but it wasn't that long.)).

    26. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      No, they have just expanded the definition of terrorist to people who don't spend enough money on the MAFIAA products.

    27. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Becaue Pakistan hiding Bin Laden is less important than Joey age 17 getting fondled. Lights Out.

      Another piece elsewhere profiled a 3 year Seattle infiltration case for big dollars that really didn't do much.

      We seriously need to shake up Big Gov, but it's getting harder.

      It's getting harder because Big Gov is thinking about the little children more now than ever.

    28. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I personally consider the rather deep and blatant connection between big media and "National Security" to be a direct [defacto] admission that the US government feels it is in danger of severe insolvency if the intellectual property cartels are broken, and/or, leave the US.

      It is one of the forms of handwriting on the wall that I mention when I say that the US is mortally ill, and in serious danger of economic implosion.

      Well, I see your point, but if outlook is so bleak, what do you suggest responsible government should do instead? Cover their heads with their hands and run around screaming? This (well, the former one) is not a rhetorical question. Really, if you want to spur a change, at the very least you have to offer an acceptable alternative.

    29. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Cant+use+a+slash+wtf · · Score: 1

      You could say the same about the Department of "Defense". Since when was invading countries in the Middle East for reasons that are not immediately clear (while still managing to lie about the reasons) considered "Defense". It's been a very long time since that word was taken literally by the US.

    30. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      I'm by no means wealthy, nor a member of a ruling class. Hell, I'm not even an American, nor have I ever been there.

      All this in no way prevents me from confidently stating that the interests of "her wealthy ruling class" are in no way, shape or form related to the interests of "the United States".

      This tends to hold true in most countries.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    31. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by sulfur · · Score: 1

      The same can be asked about media piracy! You might as well just say it: you're all equating MP3 downloads to terrorism or treason.

      I thought it was obvious to everyone that downloading mp3s is treason. After all, when you pirate mp3s, you're downloading communism.

    32. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other news, the Department of Defense is NOT about attacking...

    33. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by bye · · Score: 2

      There's an even more staggering number: 30% of all US financial wealth is owned by 400 people .

      So all those republican tax cuts went in large part to just 400 US citizens who today pay only an around 15% effective tax rate ...

    34. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Sparrow1492 · · Score: 2

      The more I see these numbers the less it actually bothers me. I'm not going to be one of those 400 people and I don't support wealth re-distribution, so it comes down to so what.

      The root cause of this is an income based tax system with a tax code so full of exemption holes that nobody pays their "fair share".

      We really need the fair tax and this wont be an issue any more. With everyone paying for what they actually spend and no exemptions, there is no more "they get more breaks than I do"

    35. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by rwv · · Score: 1

      Ministry of Peace would have been another fine choice. Or Plenty. Or Truth. Or Love.

      Because war, rationing, lies, and torture are not becoming of a centralized government.

    36. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't congratulate us Canadians just yet. We now have a Conservative majority government. While we were in a minority government situation, we actually had some sway. I fear that has now been lost. Harper and his cronies have been waiting for their majority to introduce a modernized copywrong bill.

      http://politics.slashdot.org/story/11/04/28/2136212/Wikileaks-Says-Public-Forced-Canadian-DMCA-Delay

    37. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by grahamm · · Score: 1

      Also 'homeland' is a bit of a misnomer as the USA is a land of immigrant settlement (apart for those who used to called 'Red Indians'), so for each 'group' their homeland is where the settlers originally came from.

    38. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by thoromyr · · Score: 1

      Ah, you've bought the company line. Very good for you. I can respect that you "don't support wealth re-distribution" -- but that is the underlying premise of an economy. Perhaps what you meant to say was that you "support the tendency of unregulated wealth or power to concentrate." Which is rather like saying you don't support elevators because they work against gravity.

      But the concentration is tendency only, not an absolute rule. And from time to time there are corrections. The ruling class in medieval europe forced (not necessarily consciously) Mediterranean agriculture on regions (now France, Germany and so on) where it was ineffective and inefficient, extremely intensive in man power for exceedingly low return. Such low returns that some historians discount the contemporary records for crop returns, refusing to accept the evidence. But a middle class still managed to emerge, not respected by the ruling class and despised by the impoverished masses, but still able to siphon off wealth and effect some of this redistribution you say you don't support.

      The medieval lords have been replaced and now we have a small fraction of the population controlling the vast majority of the wealth. US production levels don't require near 100% employment to maintain, but the mercantile class has convinced the population at large that "work-for-pay" is not just one method of economic regulation, but the only right and proper method -- at least for the masses.

      The balance will readjust at some point, but I do hope it is able to do so more gradually and peacefully than, say, the French Revolution. And there were impoverished people in revolutionary France who supported the authority, wealth and power of the aristocracy. It never fails that you can find people who support what objectively is counter to their better interests.

    39. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It never fails that you can find people who support what objectively is counter to their better interests.

      E.g., the bulk of the Republican Party in the US.

    40. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying he's not wealthy. I'm saying he isn't in the ruling elite if he doesn't use his wealth to exert political influence and vice versa. I wouldn't classify Bill Gates as part of the ruling elite, either.

    41. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Are you? How many political campaigns do you donate to each year? If your answer isn't "all of the ones I can donate to" then you're probably aren't a member of said ruling class.

      Or how about this: Do you personally retain a lobbying organization whose employees include failed or retired politicians? If not, then you're not even close.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    42. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some people feel that living in an ethical society (one that doesn't forcibly redistribute wealth) is in their best interest. Some people vote according to ethical standards, instead of by picking what will give them the most unearned benefits. I have quite often voted for things that will cost me, or benefit people other than me. You think that makes me stupid; I say it makes me guiltless.

      By the way, when you talk about wealth redistribution, remember to include the 'forcible' modifier, since that's what you're actually talking about. It's intellectually dishonest to attempt to gloss over that fact.

    43. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really think you're part of the ruling class, don't you? That's so cute.

    44. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Playing Devil's Advocate here:

      Do you think that children volunteer to be in child porn? I'm not American, and I'm not a major expert on child porn, so I don't know how one could link kidnapped (or born into sicko families) children with 'Defending Our Nation Against Internal and External Threats". Perhaps it's more of an FBI thing.

      As for piracy, well piracy is theft, and with use of the net, that involved a compromised boarder, as the 1's and 0's are being transmitted out of the country. Last I heard, DHS were ALL about protecting their boarders.

      To me this does sound more like FBI stuff, but I don't see why anyone who deems they want to tackle theft and kidnapping should be stopped from doing so. As long as they go about it in the right fashion though, which clearly didn't happen here.

    45. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      I find it interesting that you equate a society that doesn't "forcibly redistribute wealth" as ethical, without explaining WHY you believe it to be ethical. Note: Be careful of the can of worms you open when talking about wealth and "ethics" or as I'm sure you're alluding to "work ethics"

    46. Re:DHS chose the wrong people by bye · · Score: 1

      Note that even the premise is wrong: it's not even "their wealth" and it's not being "redistributed".

      If Warren Buffet was restricted to trading only within Somalia, would he still be able to make billions? Not at all, he needs the vast markets and vast infrastructure of a developed society to 'make money'.

      Why pretend that there's no fee for that infrastructure and civilization? Why allow free-loading on the rest of society and turn around and declare the cost collection mechanism that builds and maintains civilization (taxes) somehow 'unfair'? Just because it's not directly usage metered? How do you meter the usage of a 500 million people market? I think metering by "how much money did you make using the rest of us" is as fair and simple as it gets.

  5. Knock yourselves out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative
  6. Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it out.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Streisand effect. Before today, I never heard of the Mafiaafire plugin... but I'm going to look into it right now.
    probably download it, even if I don't use it whatever it may be.

  7. it's about time by desdinova+216 · · Score: 2

    that somebody started questioning the heavy handed tactics of big media companies

    1. Re:it's about time by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Corps do what they do. The inexcusable is our gov't doing their bidding, instead of ours.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  8. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by omglolbah · · Score: 4, Interesting

    There are some trust issues with the redirect lists but other than that it is nice

  9. Well by Black+Parrot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm glad to see that DHS has lots of free time on their hands, now that OBL is dead.

    But if they aren't going to spend time on homeland security, we should disband the monster.

    Probably should anyway...

    --
    Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    1. Re:Well by godless+dave · · Score: 1

      No kidding. We already have a Defense Department and a National Security Agency. Or is there a difference between the "nation" and the "homeland" that I'm unaware of?

      --
      "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
    2. Re:Well by russotto · · Score: 1

      No kidding. We already have a Defense Department and a National Security Agency. Or is there a difference between the "nation" and the "homeland" that I'm unaware of?

      DoD: External security
      NSA: Part of the DoD
      DHS: Internal security. Like the Gestapo, the Stasi, or any number of real and fictional organizations for oppression you've heard of.

    3. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a job creation program.

    4. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Part of my proposal for getting rid of the deficit--not that anyone is asking me, but hey, it's slashdot--would be to ruthlessly cut back on three-letter agencies. There's so many of them (FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, ICE, DEA, ATF, CBP, ...) that there has to be some major efficiency gains to be had by eliminating redundancies and merging management structures.

    5. Re:Well by Merk42 · · Score: 1

      Anonymous Coward wants to eliminate the FBI, CIA, NSA, DHS, ICE, DEA, ATF, CBP and MORE. In times of this tough economy that would result in the loss of thousands of jobs. Do you want Anonymous Coward as your governing body?

      Paid for by the committee to elect Merk42

  10. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

    Yeah if they can fix that up I will install it, now that I have heard about it... not that I even think I am likely to run into a banned domain.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by norriefc · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks for the Streisand effect DHS

  13. Where's your warrant? by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Good call. Whatever you want to call the system of government, one thing it *isn't* supposed to be is an autocracy. Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

    --
    Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
  14. Consider Donating by Relic+of+the+Future · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Even though this doesn't look like it's going to trial, you might want to consider saying "thank you" by donating.

    --
    Those who fail to understand communication protocols, are doomed to repeat them over port 80.
    1. Re:Consider Donating by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Good job sir,

      You just gave me a wonderful excuse to end up with a Mozilla plush toy! :)

      *glee*

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    2. Re:Consider Donating by CyberDragon777 · · Score: 1

      Posting to undo bad moderation.

      --
      We both said a lot of things that you are going to regret.
    3. Re:Consider Donating by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does anyone really know who fondled your plush toy last? Did they even wash beforehand? Did they wash afterward? Did they wash the plushy? I think I'm about to be sick - just the thought of plushy porn makes me ill!

    4. Re:Consider Donating by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      Ummm, okay, way to go making it weird.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:Consider Donating by Sparx139 · · Score: 1

      If you run firefox, install greasemonkey and the Moderatrix script. It adds a confirmation button to the mod system

      --
      Our culture doesn't get smarter, it just finds new ways of being retarded.
  15. I hate Government by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

    "If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

    --
    My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
    1. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My question is: why do you hate Jefferson and if he sues you for libel, would you hate government for that too?

      In fact, what Jefferson said was "Perhaps it will be found that to obtain a just republic (and it is to secure our just rights that we resort to government at all) it must be so extensive as that local egoisms may never reach it’s greater part, that on every particular question, a majority may be found in it’s councils free from particular interests, and giving therefore an uniform prevalence to the principles of justice. The smaller the societies, the more violent and more convulsive their schisms."

      "If you don't want to look like a moron, do your fucking research and stop parroting retarded libertarian bullshit you read online." - Thomas Paine

    2. Re:I hate Government by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      This story is one of the main reasons why. Instead of doing the job the government was created to do (protect individual rights from thieves, murderers, etc), the politicians/bureaucrats are the ones doing the infringing on those rights.

      I love America because Mozilla can do what they did, and are right by it.

      I also enjoy exercising my free speech and calling you a fucking idiot.

      "If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

      "only to protect our rights" in no way minimizes the role of government.

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

    3. Re:I hate Government by lennier · · Score: 4, Funny

      The smaller the societies, the more violent and more convulsive their schisms.

      "They told me a city at the bottom of the ocean populated entirely by paranoid sociopaths would fracture into civil war, so you know what I did? I set them on fire. With bees." -- Andrew Ryan.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    4. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If it were possible to have no government, we would do so. It is only to protect our rights that we resort to any government at all." - Thomas Jefferson.

      But it is entirely possible to have no government at all. That's the system that allowed us to evolve to the state we find ourselves today over hundreds of millions of years.

      What he seems to be saying rather is: 'If it were possible to have no controlling heirarchy, we would. It is only to protect ourselves that we resort to a controlling heirarchy at all.'

      And guess what? Those that are placed into the heirarchy with controlling powers use those powers to maintain position over others - the competition - just about exactly the same as in naturally formed heirarchies where those with power use it to dominate over others as a means of best ensuring their own personal survival.

      The system actors act to maintain status.

    5. Re:I hate Government by slimjim8094 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The government was created to do a number of things that aren't really relevant nowadays. By the same token, there's a number of things we require of our governments that simply did not exist when they were created. Any thinking person agrees that the FCC, in some form, is a requirement to avoid absolute radio chaos. Similarly, anti-trust laws are pretty hard to argue against - particularly when you look at historical abuses that did, in fact, happen, and how regulation made a big difference.

      So I don't understand this anti-government mentality. I believe that a properly-run government can do things for its people in aggregate that are inefficient in smaller numbers - like health care. Again, it needs to be done properly - but Social Security was done properly, so projects of that scope are clearly possible.

      I don't trust incompetent governments. But why is that a given? It's *our* government, we can make it competent if we really want to.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    6. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      Due Process. The domain name seizures are operating in a way that should only apply to inherently mobile assets, such a a yacht. For assets that cannot simply be moved different procedures apply (such as notifying prior to seizure to give the owner a chance to defend themselves before the asset is seized, etc.). Since domains can't just be moved to a different registrar and the registrars are unlikely to move they are not mobile assets, hence other procedures should apply.

      It sounds small but it would have prevented some epic fail moments, and it makes it more difficult to use it for harassment. That is why we have due process.

    7. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can start reading here. This is an older case, but speaks to many of the same problems:
      [ http://www.eff.org/cases/commonwealth-kentucky-v-141-internet-domain-names ]

      Arguing, "Owning a domain isn't a right!" is a strawman argument. IANAL, but I understand some of the actual points are questions of correct jurisdiction, action without notice or trial (or something close to that), uncertainty of the actual illegality of the sites seized in the first place, legality of pressuring intermediaries unrelated to the perpetrators.

    8. Re:I hate Government by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      The right to due process, granted explicitly by the US Constitution, as well as the right to be considered innocent until proven guilty -- a tenant of the US judicial system pretty much since the beginning.

      These seizures aren't part of any investigation, so it's not akin to a search warrant. They're seized because the government and a judge unilaterally decided their operators are guilty. The're not even bothering to try to prosecute the owners, a pretty clear indication that they don't feel they have a case capable of garnering convictions. These operators were given no notice of the investigation or the court hearings, no chance to defend themselves against the charges and, given that at least 80,000 of these seizures are on suspect grounds, it's pretty clear that it was done with no reliable evidence to begin with. When provided evidence that their seizure was in the wrong (a la dajaz1.com), ICE makes no move to so much as investigate it, much less return the property that they have stolen.

      Moreover, it allows the US government to seize the property of non-US citizens who may not be violating any laws in their own jurisdiction, even with the attempts to ram silly treaties through their teeth. In several cases, the sites were already declared to be legal by their local court systems. But because the .com and .net registries happen to be here, the US feigns jurisdiction over these people and their actions, essentially declaring itself the sole world arbiter of legality.

      Or for another explanation:

      In contrast to ordinary copyright litigation, the domain name seizure process does not appear to give targeted websites an opportunity to defend themselves before sanctions are imposed. As you know, there is an active and contentious legal debate about when a website may be held liable for infringing activities by its users. I worry that domain name seizures could function as a means for end-running the normal legal process in order to target websites that may prevail in full court. The new enforcement approach used by Operation In Our Sites is alarmingly unprecedented in the breadth of its potential reach...

      For the Administration's efforts to be seen as legitimate, it should be able to defend its use of the forfeiture laws by prosecuting operators of domain names and provide a means to ensure due process. If the federal government is going to take property and risk stifling speech, it must be able to defend those actions not only behind closed doors but also in a court of law.

      -- US Senator Ron Wyden

    9. Re:I hate Government by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Uh, domains can move from registrar to registrar, crossing state and even country boundaries. I'm not defending their actions, just poking a hole in your reasoning.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    10. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      As another poster mentioned, due process, but that's irrelevant. You see, you do have a right to a domain name. Do you know why? Because rights aren't granted. The constitution is meant to place limits on the governments, not to be an exhaustive list of your rights. If they don't mention their right to take it away, you have it by default.

    11. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it.

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      Yes, you have the right to an Internet domain name. If it is not enumerated in the US constitution as being a power/duty of the federal government, and if your state does not restrict it, then it is your right.

    12. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unreasonable search and seizure of property, effects and papers without a legitimate warrant. Being deprived of speech and property without due process. The internet is the new press and seizing it violates freedom of the press and speech. Obviously I'm not a lawyer but I believe the pressure that is being placed on private institutions to carry out the above examples falls outside of the powers granted to the U.S. federal government.

    13. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      How about the right to due process and a fair trial, which they trampled on by revoking domain names without warning and trying to bully Mozilla into removing the extension?

    14. Re:I hate Government by Bacon+Bits · · Score: 2

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      Rights are not granted. Rights are inherent and sovereign. There are no laws which grant rights. There are only laws which recognize and protect rights. Privileges are granted. It is your right to own property, including an automobile (or a domain name). It is a privilege to drive your automobile on state-owned and state-maintained roads, which is why a license to operate is required. Thus, it is the right of the maintainers of the website MAFIAAFire to own the domain they have paid for. It is also the right of Mozilla Foundation to post whatever they wish on the site they own. It is up to the government to prove -- in a court of law -- that a law has been broken. When a law has been broken and it has been proven in a court of law, only then should the rights of a person be truncated. Your rights end where another's rights begin, but the government has to prove that before your rights can be denied.

      This is a gross oversimplification, of course, but it is the general jist of the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution, OTOH, is largely a functional document. The philosophy of the nation resides in the Declaration, the Bill of Rights, and to a lesser extent the remaining Amendments.

      There are some special exceptions to ownership rights, which the founders did recognize. When you publish or sell items, you lose control of them and effectively lose much of the extent of ownership. To protect and foster growth, and to allow industry and artistry to be a profitable and lucrative way of life -- and thus an economic force -- the government chose to restrict the natural right of possession being total ownership. They do this through the use of patents to foster industry, and copyright to foster artistry. They provide a limited monopoly, and -- crucially -- they are an artificial not a natural right.

      Of course, corporations, copyright holders, and patent holders have tried to extend their artificial right to a perpetual one. This will eventually cause significant harm to industry and artistry, as it is creating an aristocracy of IP owners. Students of Europe in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries can tell you all about how well aristocracies work out in the end.

      You'll notice that one area is [largely] not covered by copyright and patent law is food production. The recipe for Coca-Cola, or McDonald's french fries, or Cheetos isn't protected at all. It must be kept secret. If the recipe is lost, there is no real legal recourse. You'll notice this hasn't stopped the popularity of certain brands or the ability to monetize certain foods. Of course, it also hasn't protected new small businesses entering the field from competitors, but one might argue that market competition is more worthwhile than patent and copyright litigation.

      --
      The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
    15. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love America because Mozilla can do what they did, and are right by it.

      I also enjoy exercising my free speech and calling you a fucking idiot.

      Let's wait till they get a national security order which forces them to comply and makes it illegal to even talk about said order. You might want to reconsider blindly spouting tired, old buzzwords like "freedom" and "free speech" that have been qualified again and again in recent years.

    16. Re:I hate Government by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      But why is that a given? It's *our* government, we can make it competent if we really want to.

      Because in general, competent people would rather do something else with their time than run for office. There are so many more better ways to be productive than sitting in senate where sometimes you get to vote on an interesting issue, not according to party line.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    17. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      4th amendment - You're not allowed to seize my shit just because you don't like it. You have to take me to court and I have to have a chance to defend myself.

      A domain name is an asset.

      Ergo, you cannot legally take it simply because you want to.

    18. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you stupid fucking troll. how about not having your assets seized without due process by an unconstitutional gov't agency?

    19. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By extension, due to the use of the internet globally, as a speech tool, The right to free speech is being suppressed. Indirectly, somewhat, yes. Very effectively suppressed, due to the number of potential viewers and global reach? Absolutely.

    20. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social Security was done properly. The objection is to the EXPANDING government, not the government itself. Social security was opened to the treasury by this same government. It now faces complete bankruptcy due to pilfering by several budgets.

    21. Re:I hate Government by swillden · · Score: 1

      a tenant of the US judicial system

      Just a nitpick: You mean "tenet", not "tenant".

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    22. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      The seized domain owners right to free speech, and the US constitution, amendment one.

    23. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do the Amerinazi's have to do with what Mozilla can and cannot do? It's not like there aren't contributors from around the WORLD to the project. I'm beginning to understand why the rest of the world wants to kill you people, they'd be doing the collective gene pool a favour if they succeeded.

    24. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

      Ahem. You are not "granted" your rights. You already have them, nobody gives them to you. They can, however, be taken away...

    25. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "but Social Security was done properly"

      I think math teachers all over the world just cried out in pain. Social security in the US is a failed math equation, period.

      Exponential functions (n>1) always trump geometric ones. It is a fact I will never see one red cent from SS, as by the time it rolls around the SS debt would be 100 times our GDP or whatever and no economic system in the world would be able to allow that farce to continue.

    26. Re:I hate Government by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      SS had an absolutely massive surplus. The government screwed it up by pilfering from its coffers, this is true, but the program itself isn't flawed. Had it run as designed, it would *still* run a surplus.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    27. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The inalienable right to the product of one's labor, which does not need to be granted, as it is viewed by many as the inherent right of an free-willed agent. A domain name is not an apple, but someone produced it, and perhaps there was no prior claim on the things necessary to produce it (sticky point with public property, ICAAN, and government there, perhaps). Jefferson was greatly influenced by John Locke. "Only to protect our rights" does not minimize the importance of government, but it does delimit the justification of its authority.

    28. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bandwidth ownership in a region is similar to the argument for domain names. I can envision people stepping on each other's bandwidth, perhaps not prettily, but without contradiction. Perhaps this is similar to the proposed justifications for copyright and patents. Registration based on first claim (similar to water rights in Colorado) might be reasonable. Anti-trust laws are much easier to argue against. Abuses occurred, but perhaps trusts also catapulted production through the Industrial Age, to the overall benefit of society (progress has arguably not been as rapid since the large-scale enforcement of Anti-trust legislation, nor people as free to choose (arguably an inherent good), though the choices left to some diminished, they were still free to choose from those limited choices. Randroids, not Locke-ians, might then argue you are given life, but not owed survival. Locke clearly, though somewhat inconsistently, aludes to the common good).

    29. Re:I hate Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right to due process...and the ability to own private property that is protected from arbitrary government seizure. DHS/ICE could make a mistake (gosh, that would NEVER happen would it?) and destroy someone's livelihood and/or reputation in the blink of an eye. That mistake wouldn't cost them a thing, in fact, they'd probably claim that it was Just and Good and that they did The Right Thing because they're all Heroes. For the rest of us, the stakes are very high.

      Who grants a right? Really?

      Are you really that fucking ignorant? I'm not sure what you mean by if applicable, this discussion has nothing to do with privileges, except perhaps the privilege of agencies like DHS to do whatever they want. Privileges are granted. Not rights.

    30. Re:I hate Government by sjames · · Score: 1

      It is entirely possible to love America and hate the government. The two are not the same thing.

  16. Re:fuck you lameoids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Name one person.

    I dare you.

  17. Yeah right by sjbe · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

    [crickets]

    Thought so...

    1. Re:Yeah right by BlueStrat · · Score: 0

      Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

      [crickets]

      Thought so...

      ...And yet, the largest grass-roots citizen group whose goal is to reduce the size & scope of the Federal Government precisely to avoid this kind of heavy-handed un-Constitutional crap is regularly ridiculed and disparaged by most of the posters here who claim to hate this sort of government intrusion and overstepping of powers.

      I should form a company and grab some ad space on /. to sell "foot-guns". I'd be able to buy-out both Trump and Soros in a year.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:Yeah right by lennier · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

      They already have, and loudly. Everyone who votes for one of the two mainstream parties thinks this, or they'd be voicing their displeasure by voting for a third party. That's why third parties exist. The fact that third parties don't get elected means that the majority of US voters don't, in fact, feel enough of a disconnect with the Democrats or Republicans to actually vote them out.

      It's pleasant to think that your views about the unrepresentativeness of mainstream US elected government are widespread and the majority - but the facts don't seem to actually bear this out.

      The majority actually do think their government is working for them - when their party is in power - and are quite happy to turn a blind eye to any abuses of the rights of the other 49% of Americans. The other party is of course committing the most horrible atrocities since Hitler, and creating the biggest constitutional crises since Julius Ceasar crossed the Rubicon, and the other 49% of voters are all evil, stupid, deluded sheep who adhere to a morally corrupt and self-contradictory political philosophy - but their party and supporters are entirely composed of hard-working, honest, shining crusaders for political reform who arrived at all their political positions from first principles derived from the Law of Identity.

      The minority party supporters laugh at this, because they know that it's really only their party who are honest shining crusaders and 99% of the voters who are deluded and philosophically bankrupt.

      --
      You are not a brain: http://books.google.com/books?id=2oV61CeDx-YC
    3. Re:Yeah right by serialband · · Score: 1

      Remember, they're working for you, on your dime.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAAA! Funniest thing I've heard all day. Will anyone who thinks our government is working for us speak up?

      [crickets]

      Thought so...

      So what are you doing to change that? The government is working for us in a way, but you need to speak up. The squeaky wheel gets the grease and the smaller wheels need to squeak louder to get heard.

    4. Re:Yeah right by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nope, nope, nope. The Teabaggers are ridiculed because they are a bunch of mentally diseased lunatics\idiots being led by mentally disease lunatics\puppets for the ruling class. You don't really think that Glenn Beck wants to stop the DHS from policing the internet, do you?
      99% of them are just there because they think that the 500$ they would save by shutting down all schools would make them rich. And the other 1% are there to convince the other 99% that that is in their best interest.

    5. Re:Yeah right by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Wow. No, the objection every thinking person has to the "Tea Party" is that they aren't actually interested in anything specific. What they are interested in, under the guise of "limited government", is more of a corpratocracy (no regulation, no taxes for wealthy, etc). This isn't much of a surprise, considering that the "grass roots" organization is pretty much championed by very large corporations (Fox News)

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
    6. Re:Yeah right by M.+Baranczak · · Score: 4, Funny

      Pernicious nonsense. The Tea Party is a group of patriotic Americans who seek to return this great country to the principles on which it was founded: liberty and equal rights for all, except slaves, Indians and women.

    7. Re:Yeah right by Homburg · · Score: 2

      reduce the size & scope of the Federal Government

      What does "reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government" have to do with making the government work for us? If anything, a small government is less able to work for us - it either does nothing, or is more easily captured by the rich and powerful.

    8. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US military.

    9. Re:Yeah right by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think if you actually took a poll, you'd find that most people aren't voting for one of the two parties. They're voting against the other one. The first-past-the-gate election system has created a nice big hole for tyranny, through perfectly rational decisions by game theory.

      Unfortunately, the usurpers won't ever put in place a system where they likely won't be able to maintain power, so we're going to be stuck with first-past-the-gate until things get bad enough that armed revolution stops sounding crazy. And probably after that, too, because most people are used to it and don't even know of another way to do things...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    10. Re:Yeah right by MoonBuggy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ‘Odd,’ said Arthur, ‘I thought you said it was a democracy?’

      ‘I did,’ said Ford, ‘It is.’

      ‘So,’ said Arthur, hoping he wasn’t sounding ridiculously obtuse, ‘why don’t the people get rid of the lizards?’

      ‘It honestly doesn’t occur to them,’ said Ford. ‘They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.’

      ‘You mean they actually vote for the lizards?’

      ‘Oh yes,’ said Ford with a shrug, ‘of course.’

      ‘But,’ said Arthur, going for the big one again, ‘why?’

      ‘Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,’ said Ford, ‘the wrong lizard might get in.’

      Basically, I think you're overestimating the number of people who actually genuinely support either party. 'Voting for' isn't the same as 'supporting', or even 'agreeing with'.

    11. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FPTP voting systems always deteriorate into 2 party systems, it is mathematically impossible that another alternative occur in the long run.

      for your hypothetical 'viable 3rd party' to exist, it would require a single election cycle transition from 49-51-0 to a 0-49-51, this is the best case scenario.

      this can never happen because votes taken must reduce votes from another party. Here party A must be reduced in order for C to win. typically you see something like 42-48-10, which puts B as the winner. The presence of C reduces the votes of the party it is most closely aligned with (here, A), instead of representing the peoples wishes properly. In a FPTP system A loses every time C is effective. The vote stealing IMPROVES B's chances.

      this encourages crazy left/right positions, and reduces moderation. AV systems are a good way of preventing this, but are fought against by incumbents (the incumbent power would be reduced by viable alternates).

    12. Re:Yeah right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      _n_rchy

      Would you like to buy a vowel?

    13. Re:Yeah right by ildon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They build my bridges, fix my roads, fund companies who provide power and water, make sure that water is clean and drinkable, police the streets, protect the people. Government does some good things. It's mostly local and state government, but it's still government.

    14. Re:Yeah right by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      What does "reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government" have to do with making the government work for us? If anything, a small government is less able to work for us

      A small government is also less able to work against us, whether intentionally or inadvertently.

    15. Re:Yeah right by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

      All the bullet-headed teabaggers I know are pretty down on the ACLU, as well. And they REALLY want to end tort law protection, or pretty much any legal help for anyone that can't pay cash for it. (No one ever gets arrested unless they were doing something wrong; It's true! Ah seen it on teevee!)

      --
      They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
    16. Re:Yeah right by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      What does "reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government" have to do with making the government work for us? If anything, a small government is less able to work for us - it either does nothing, or is more easily captured by the rich and powerful.

      A small, relatively-weak Federal Government, by it's very nature of being weak, removes itself almost completely from corporate targeting for control, as there is relatively little a weak Federal Government can do to tilt economic and other factors to any great effect.

      Which, of course, is *why* corporations and others spend so much money and go to such lengths to influence those in positions of power in the Federal Government. Why briW^W^W^lobby a politician that doesn't have the power to help you?

      As to government working for us, with a smaller/weaker Federal Government comes a shift of power to the States and local government. That puts those politicians who have the most effect on citizen's daily lives and interactions closer to the local voter, and so one person's vote will have more of an effect on their everyday lives.

      Instead of, for instance, having to defeat a President and/or Congress to be able to install a toilet of your choice, that regulatory power would be controlled at the State, county, or city level housing codes, and so you are more easily able to empower change in your area without forcing that decision on anyone else in another city/county/State, nor require their approval/vote in turn. This allows for more flexibility in governance. One size doesn't always fit all.

      Low-flow toilets might be a worthy thing to enact in places where water supplies are scarce/expensive. It's a waste of time and money, along with being an unneeded imposition on freedom, in places that have far more water than they know what to do with.

      All government is local, and so the reverse is true...local government should have the most power as it relates to the governing of individual citizens. Taking power away from local governments like States, counties, cities, etc and giving it to the Federal Government is taking power away from the citizens to control with their vote how & how much government affects their lives.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    17. Re:Yeah right by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

      The first-past-the-gate election system has created a nice big hole for tyranny, through perfectly rational decisions by game theory.

      I don't like two-party systems either, but you can mitigate this by voting in the primaries.

      In addition it's quite possible to bring in third parties, however you have to get rid of the idea that there is a quick and easy fix available. You need to build it from the ground up - start running in local elections, get council members, mayors then state representatives, governorships, senators. Only once you've established yourself as a political force you field your own presidential candidate.

    18. Re:Yeah right by bye · · Score: 1

      What does "reducing the size and scope of the Federal Government" have to do with making the government work for us? If anything, a small government is less able to work for us - it either does nothing, or is more easily captured by the rich and powerful.

      A small, relatively-weak Federal Government, by it's very nature of being weak, removes itself almost completely from corporate targeting for control, as there is relatively little a weak Federal Government can do to tilt economic and other factors to any great effect.

      No, historic precedent is overwhelming in that regard: weak governments get owned , entirely, and everyone suffers except the select few. Think of medieval Germany with literally dozens of weak governments. It was one of the most destructive periods of Germany.

      But you do not have to look that far back in time: just consider the weak central governments in Africa today. Western corporations are essentially owning those governments lock, stock and barrel. Look at the human (and economic and environmental ...) cost and weep.

      Is this really what you want to see in the US as well?

      Which, of course, is *why* corporations and others spend so much money and go to such lengths to influence those in positions of power in the Federal Government.

      Not really: lobbying for more influence is only a second preference to the primary option, which is to own a weak the government.

      Lobbying balances out in the long run so for every Microsoft force there's a Google counter-force. For every NRA there's an ACLU, etc. Yes, it ebbs and flows, and you never really like the status quo, but that is what you get from democracy: if you (collectively) do not like how lobbying is handled in Washington do not elect the politicians you do.

      If you are in a minority voting power wise you'll have to suck it up.

      With a weak central government everyone has to suck it up ...

      To prove your point you'd have to show how the many examples of disastrous weak government precedents do not count and you'd also have to show successful weak government models. I submit that you cannot meet either of those requirements and I submit that much of your argument is just wishful thinking not supported by historic facts or by common sense logic.

    19. Re:Yeah right by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      They build my bridges, fix my roads, fund companies who provide power and water, make sure that water is clean and drinkable, police the streets, protect the people. Government does some good things. It's mostly local and state government, but it's still government.

      I'm not sure about you, but where I live (Houston), my LOCAL Government does all those good things -- the FEDERAL Government is off making secret copyright laws behind my back (ACTA), wasting shit-tons of money enforcing Civil copyright complains without due process (ICE takedowns) and in TFA's case, overstepping their legal authority with the assumption that they can (because they will soon pass a law giving them those rights if they face resistance) -- good call Moz Devs, now, if only our congress & senate would read and uphold the constitution too -- esp. the whole "congress shall make no law" part, and other such amendments.

    20. Re:Yeah right by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      They already have, and loudly. Everyone who votes for one of the two mainstream parties thinks this, or they'd be voicing their displeasure by voting for a third party.

      Nice try, but you've conveniently ignored reality. The media tells people that voting for a third party is futile because the two-party system controls the media. Most people believe we have free media in this country, and that is both false and misleading were it true since the 1% controls 99% of media. So people vote for the "lesser of evils", believing that such a thing actually exists, because they have been instructed by the powers that be that voting for a third party is throwing their vote away.

      The majority actually do think their government is working for them - when their party is in power - and are quite happy to turn a blind eye to any abuses of the rights of the other 49% of Americans.

      No, this is a bogus reframing of the debate. The majority thinks the other side will do a worse job than their side. It doesn't mean they're actually in favor of their candidate. From my own personal experience in a mostly democrat state, people who vote democrat do it to avoid the evil republicans, while people who vote republican do it to avoid the pussy-willow democrats. Nobody is actually voting for anybody any more, they're just trying to stem the tide. That never works.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Yeah right by sjames · · Score: 1

      Modded funny (and it IS funny), but it's really sadly insightfully funny. That is exactly why 3rd parties stand no chance. People are terrified that if they split the vote for Phil, the prince of insufficient light and the good guy, Satan might win. The people would love to be able to rank the candidates by preference but since Satan or Phil are always in office more or less 50/50 and know there's not a chance they'll ever get elected again if people could do that, it'll never happen. They'll use excuses like ranking things is confusing to people (even though people seem to understand top40, top 10, and top100 easily enough) because actually admitting they're subverting democracy would be a bad PR move.

    22. Re:Yeah right by npsimons · · Score: 1

      I don't like two-party systems either, but you can mitigate this by voting in the primaries.

      Fuck primaries! First and foremost, I'm not going to lie and say I support your corrupt little party just so I can have a say in which candidates you field. Second, even if you let undeclared/third party voters vote in your primary, it's a bunch of bullshit. If a candidate is good enough to get into the primary, why not present him or her on the final ballot? Yeah, yeah, you might have to spread campaign money around (which should be illegal anyways), or you're afraid voters will be confused. What's so hard about presenting candidate's positions and letting people vote based on that? There are websites where you can plug in your position on different issues and they will match up which candidate most closely matches your positions.

    23. Re:Yeah right by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      The chances that the average person, average defined as

      moderately interested in politics
      watches an average news show
      has an average education
      etc..

      to have a clear picture of the real core problems in the US is close to zero.

      Only a small handful of large corporations own the vast majority of all radio and tv news channels. All of those channels are mostly motivated by profit. The root issues facing the US are complex and don't fit into 5-10 minute news segments very well. The average american is unlikely to watch an hour long documentary about the federal reserve or some other complex issue.

      In a Democracy, it really is up to news organizations to provide accurate information to the citizenry for those citizens to vote intelligently. The average person has never, and likely will never be intelligent enough, motivated enough, or interested in politics enough to really understand complex issues.

      It is up to the news to research, summarize, and present in an average reading level, stories that should benefit the public good. I don't see any easy way to fix things though. A likely good start would be public well funded TV and radio channels, governed by a board of elected officials. A set amount of public money given to each candidate able to get X signatures, and zero outside money allowed to buy tv or radio adds. Basically, make the people running it as immune to corporate or political pressure as possible.

    24. Re:Yeah right by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why both major parties are shitting kittens every time the Tea Party is mentioned. Oh damn, a viable contender to the 2-party duocracy, the first in over a century? AAAAAAAAHHHH NOOOOOO!

    25. Re:Yeah right by tjonnyc999 · · Score: 1

      By using a pejorative adjective to automatically attach negative meaning to all members of a group of people, you're making me think that your opinion on the Tea Party may not be totally objective... just a slight hint there.

  18. Wierd. by deepershade · · Score: 1

    I tried to search for it...

    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search/?q=mafiaafire&cat=all&x=25&y=23

    ...and got nothing. If it wasn't for a link posted in the thread I wouldn't have found it. Maybe it's just me. Dunno.

  19. Re:Crazy glue by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 3, Informative

    A search for addons called MAFIAAFIRE is yielding no results.

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  20. Don't forget this question by tryggth · · Score: 1

    Who within the Dept. Initiated the request, and what prompted them?

    1. Re:Don't forget this question by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      AHHHH-HAAAA! Had you RTFA, you would know that was one of the questions that Mozilla asked DHS! Gotcha!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  21. Source by Banichi · · Score: 1

    Would someone inform me of what changes to make regarding stopping the plugin from redirecting traffic every 15 pages? Or even provide a link to a version of the plugin that doesn't do that?
    http://mafiaafire.com/wall-of-text.php#s

    1. Re:Source by syousef · · Score: 1

      Would someone inform me of what changes to make regarding stopping the plugin from redirecting traffic every 15 pages? Or even provide a link to a version of the plugin that doesn't do that?
      http://mafiaafire.com/wall-of-text.php#s

      It's the mafiaafire plugin. Of course it's gonna take a cut.

      --
      These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
    2. Re:Source by StayFrosty · · Score: 4, Insightful

      fireICEis a rewrite that gets rid of the nag screen and addresses some of the privacy concerns the author had with the original MafiaaFire.

      --
      "Frequently wrong, never in doubt."
  22. Re:Crazy glue by Twigmon · · Score: 5, Informative
  23. Futile at best by sl149q · · Score: 1

    If mafiaafire is removed, I'm sure that mafiaafire2 will soon be added to the plugin lists. Then thisisnotmafiafire, etc, etc, etc.

    1. Re:Futile at best by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's nice to remember that we can easily install Firefox extensions that are not hosted at Mozilla.org. There is no way to forbid users from installing any particular extension -- even if Mozilla is required to remove the extension in the official listing, we can get it somewhere else.

    2. Re:Futile at best by HNicolai · · Score: 1

      Yea, but the way MafiaaFire is made is quite "vulnerable". ICE can just 'steal' MafiaaFire's domain(s) and the the addon doesn't work anymore. This is one of the reasons I've made a re-write of MafiaaFire ( https://addons.mozilla.org/da/firefox/addon/fireice/ )

  24. That's exactly what they want by Sloppy · · Score: 2

    They put some DHS code into mafiaafire right before they did this, to subvert subversive people.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:That's exactly what they want by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      They put some DHS code into mafiaafire right before they did this, to subvert subversive people.

      But users of subblock-plus will never see the subvertizement.

  25. Police state. by SeNtM · · Score: 1

    Now that Osama bin Fucktard is gone, it is time to take this police state back.

    --
    "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
    1. Re:Police state. by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Didn't you hear? Now that Osama Bin Laden is dead, we must be even more vigilant, because there might be some sort of revenge.

      Convenient, this whole Osama situation -- when he is a live, you have a boogie man constantly plotting to attack, and when he is dead, you have the looming possibility of revenge attacks. Citizens can always be convinced to give up their rights these days, since we are always fighting wars that have no possibility of a meaningful victory.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Police state. by SeNtM · · Score: 2

      This is why he was dumped off the back of a ship with no witnesses. Its hard to be a martyr with no proof of death...

      --
      "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
    3. Re:Police state. by X.25 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Now that Osama bin Fucktard is gone, it is time to take this police state back.

      And you couldn't do that while Osama was alive because... ?

    4. Re:Police state. by SeNtM · · Score: 1

      The moment just seems apropos to strip DHS of the unwarranted power it now has. Just as in the article, maybe we as a people should follow suite and start to greater question the motives of organizations that seek to "protect" us under the falsehood of potential terrorist attacks.

      --
      "There ought to be limits to freedom." -George W. Bush
  26. They didn't clam up by mysidia · · Score: 1

    Unsurprisingly, when faced with legitimate concerns about the legality of their domain seizure program, the DHS has decided to clam up."

    This just means that they are in process of preparing the papers to get Mozilla.org, and related domains seized.

  27. what about just host entries? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shouldn't this kind of thing be done with either a local DNS or just some entries in /etc/hosts?

    A browser plugin restricts it to just the browser, and has certain trust issues.

    Seems like plain text is the way to go and much simpler.

  28. Proud of Mozilla by jenic · · Score: 1

    I normally don't post offhand comments but I just feel really compelled to say how good I feel about the donations I've made to Mozilla. I felt good about them before, but this just makes it that much better!

  29. Copyright enfringement a national security issue? by godless+dave · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why is the Department of Homeland Security involved in copyright enforcement at all? It's not a national security issue. I can see parts of the Justice Department being involved, and certainly the FCC and the department of commerce. But Homeland Security? Aren't they supposed to defend the country from physical attacks by enemies? Forgive me if this has been asked and answered.

    --
    "If it's real, then it gets more interesting the closer you examine it. If it's not real, just the opposite is true." -
  30. A Pompous Stance by Chicken_Kickers · · Score: 1

    So, Mozilla can't win can they. IF they stick it to the Man, then it is because they coincidentally don't like this particular Man. If they bow down to the Man, then it is as expected. I wonder how you go through life with such a jaded and cynical outlook. Mozilla has done the right thing, morally and legalistically. They deserve to be praised.

    1. Re:A Pompous Stance by migla · · Score: 1

      What was said was "Many, if not most humans seem to be authoritarians", which still leaves some to most outside of the group labeled authoritarians.

      --
      Some of my favourite people are from th US; Vonnegut, Chomsky, Bill Hicks.
  31. Mafiaafire plugin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I downloaded the plugin and used it. Shit was cash.

  32. Re:So Glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm still trying to figure out what US ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) even has to do with piracy, porn, or the internet at all. I've come to the conclusion that someone over there thinks the acronym actually stands for Internet Censorship Enforcement. I find it hard to believe that metallica mp3s and bootleg hollywood hogwash has anything to do with the security of my homeland.

  33. Thanks by pcjunky · · Score: 1

    If had not been for this I would never have heard of this.

  34. Project has forked by AnotherScratchMonkey · · Score: 5, Informative

    There's now a fork called FireICE so DHS now has an additional extension to suppress.

    1. Re:Project has forked by cultiv8 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Good changes, too. Mod parent post up...

      --
      sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
    2. Re:Project has forked by formfeed · · Score: 1

      Mod parent post up...

      Don't tell me what to do!

      Oh crap. -Where did the mod-boxes go?

  35. DHS changes its name to Streisand... by DaneM · · Score: 3, Informative

    Way to go, Mozilla, for standing up to these tyrants! I might just write Mozilla an email, congratulating them for it.

    As for the take-down notice itself...having never heard of the add-on before, I've just installed it. Good job, DHS guys! (Who says they don't promote freedom?)

  36. Rights are like Muscles... by Charliemopps · · Score: 2

    Rights are like muscles, if you fail to exercise them, they become weak.

  37. FireICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The differences between FireICE and MafiaaFire are explained here https://addons.mozilla.org/da/firefox/addon/fireice/

  38. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What they're kind-of doing here is to set up an alternative to DNS. You enter a domain name, and rather than directing you towards what the official DNS servers think you should see, your browser shows you what you wanted to see: the banned website.

    The right way to do this would be to set up an alternative DNS server, with all the same entries as the official DNS servers, except that they retain the correct entries for the banned sites. That way, rather than running an extension on top of their browsers, users just have to change their DNS settings. It's a more elegant solution, automatically updating, etc...

    But, I'll take what I can get. Although it's kinda crufty, it's probably easier for most Firefox users to install an extension, because it's something they've done before. And it's better to have an imperfect solution now than a perfect solution someday in the future. So I'll install the Mafiaafire extension, anyway.

  39. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  40. Ambiguity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The more complex and ambiguous the law, the more exploitable the law is for those who control the business of government. It's not how you spend your multi billion-dollar budget, it's how you leverage it.

  41. Security concerns by jimmyswimmy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    One of the commenters on the FF extension suggested that the extension introduces a serious vulnerability into your browser - by downloading the XML file containing the list of sites to be redirected, you are basically offering that website the ability to redirect "youtube.com" to "nastysexxxxxychix.com" or whatever. Certainly this would be unpleasant on a work computer, but it could also be used to send you to a malicious site. He also pointed out that every 15 times the extension is actually called you are sent to a "Help Us" page where they probably ask for donations.

    The same commenter forked the extension to another called FireIce which has a hardcoded list of sites. I think the ideal way would be with a user-configurable list which the user can easily update from a website as desired, rather than automatically downloading an XML file without user input.

    This other extension - which I haven't tried and cannot endorse - is at https://addons.mozilla.org/da/firefox/addon/fireice/

    --

    Just my $0.55 (US inflation, 1774-2008, for $0.02)
    1. Re:Security concerns by mdbbel · · Score: 1

      That's correct, I just checked the source and for those who are interested, this xml file can be downloaded at http://mafiaafire.com/xml-update/xml-list.php . It's noteworthy that in the current release, only one out of 4 mirrors of the xml file are working. BTW, am I currently doing illegal things by linking to illegal stuff?

    2. Re:Security concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DHS is actually behind the extension and is using the Streisand Effect to get everyone to download it where it secretly sends your private data out every 15 minutes.

    3. Re:Security concerns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes exactly! Also, ICE can just 'steal' Mafiaafire's domain(s) or hackers could hack one of the domains (and the addon doesn't work / you've fucked). One of these domains is "ifucksexygirls.com" - this means if you do not trust "ifucksexygirls.com" then you shouldn't install MafiaaFire. Remember MafiaaFire could potentially "steal" ('phish') your facebook/mail/slashdot/etc password easily :S (again a reason to use FireICE instead of MafiaaFire).

  42. Trying this again (ask this) by tryggth · · Score: 1

    Who within the department initiated this? And why did they do that? Saw someone say "RTFM". Read it and that question wasn't in the list.

  43. Typical DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hot on the footsteps of the murders in Pakastan, DHS, i.e. SDHS Janet N. and her lapdog Pistol are proclaming, Empire, in their blind rush to oblivion.

    "Geronimo' as chosen for the 'Get Osama Raid' was very ahpripo.

    In the 1870s the US Government was carrying out a plan of genocide against the American peoples of North America.

    Geronimo was a figure who became a rally point for the 'real Americans', not the Caucasian Christian invaders (White Rasists).

    By the end of Obama's second term of office, the former countries of Afganistan and Iraq, will become Territories of the United States of America.

    And with THAT Executive Order, a new 100 years of genocide will be unleashed against Muslem peoples and the Islamic Faith.

    May the White Rasist God Bless Barak Hussien Obama II.

    T

    1. Re:Typical DHS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you think all white people are religious fanatics like yourself?
      I'd say about 1 in 10 "whiteys" I know belong to a religion.

      Do you think everyone else in the world dwells on things that happened 100 or 1000 years ago that they had nothing to do with?
      People that aren't morons look to the future and don't drag on things that were never their problem to begin with.

      Do you really think the US government was after Osama because he was a "Muslim"?
      Or was it because he was involved in killing thousands of people.

      Do you want to be a human or a crazy religious sheep?
      You decide.

  44. Hanlon's Razor? by whoever57 · · Score: 2

    Probably just a junior flunky demanding the takedown without any backing from his superiors.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  45. Addendum by bjdevil66 · · Score: 1

    The ones who aren't kissing the ass of said all powerful authority are usually the ones who are kissing their own ass, usually while looking down on everyone else in their own wisdom, blissfully unaware of their intellectual narcissism.

    It's a scary thing not having something to worship...

    1. Re:Addendum by spun · · Score: 1

      Is it scary, or liberating, or is it freedom itself is scary? For an answer to that question, I give you "No One at the Bridge" by Rush.

      Crying back to consciousness,
      The coldness grips my skin.
      The sky is pitching violently,
      Drawn by shrieking winds.
      Seaspray blurs my vision,
      Waves roll by so fast,
      Save my ship of freedom
      I'm lashed, helpless to the mast.

      Remembering when first I held
      The wheel in my own hands,
      I took the helm so eagerly
      And sailed for distant lands.
      But now the sea's too heavy
      And I just don't understand
      Why must my crew desert me
      When I need a guiding hand?

      Call out for direction
      And there's no one there to steer.
      Shout out for salvation
      But there's no one there to hear.
      Cry out supplication
      For the maelstrom is near.
      Scream out desperation but
      No one cares to hear.

      Great essay on the meaning here: http://www.egodeath.com/rushlyrics.htm

      Site name, egodeath, says it all. Anyone who has done DMT knows exactly what this song refers to, but I hear you can get to the same place if you meditate long enough.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  46. After reading one of the articles, I can only say by AnonymusCowMoo · · Score: 0

    this: Well done mister Andersen! MAFIAA/DHS: As you can see, we've had our eye on you for some time now, Mr. Andersen. MAFIAA/DHS: I'm going to enjoy watching you die, Mr. Andersen. Mozilla: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my phone call. MAFIAA/DHS: Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak? MAFIAA/DHS: You hear that Mr. Anderson?... That is the sound of inevitability... It is the sound of your death... Goodbye, Mr. Andersen... Mozzilla: Yeah. Well, that sounds like a pretty good deal. But I think I may have a better one. How about, I give you the finger.

  47. US Voter Turnout and the Majority by JohnSearle · · Score: 1

    This is off-topic for the article, but I had to reply to your rant....

    Please take a look at US voter turnout for the last few elections. US Voter Turnout

    Recently, the US seems to be alternating between ~40-50% voter turnout for the eligible voters. The 2006 elections, for example, saw 37.1% voter turnout. This is hardly the majority of Americans speaking up for their current system electoral system.

    It sounds more like a disaffected population that feels little hope of altering the system. This may also explain why the Democrats rallied the highest voter turnout since 1968 in the last election with their talks of changing the way government is run.

    On a side note, with only 40% of the eligible voters voting, and elections being split 50/50 (give or take), the ruling party is usually only ruling with ~20% of the population's consent. And, back to your point, when they get into power, they actually represent the interests of even fewer.

    1. Re:US Voter Turnout and the Majority by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Alternatively, the typically-sub-50% voter turnout could indicate widespread apathy that is not reflected in our hysterical news cycle.

  48. Re:Ruling Class by hoboroadie · · Score: 2

    Once you own a few senators, or a television network, maybe if you sit on the Federal Reserve Board, then I'd consider you "wealthy ruling class".

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  49. Thanks DHS! by blackdew · · Score: 1

    I've never heard of mafiaafire until today, probably because i've never used any of those seized sites... But now i installed it just in case, Thanks DHS!

  50. Re:So Glad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That US ICE even considers "pirate" and "child porn" websites to be in the same category.

    They don't. They started with "pirate" domains. In later seizure batches they added "cp" for PR reasons and to silence critics with the usual "are you for CP??!!11?"-bullshit. CP is just something they later slapped on as a disguise. It doesn't cost corporations money.

  51. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by Asic+Eng · · Score: 1

    even if I don't use it whatever it may be.

    It maps names of domains which were seized for some reason, to the new domains the websites moved to.

  52. Re:Crazy glue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    A search for addons called MAFIAAFIRE is yielding no results.

    Mafiaafire appears to be unlisted, as browsing through the list of extensions reveals no such program. Did Mozilla cave in to DHS demands despite their initial refusal, or was the software never listed in the first place?

    Unlawful domain seizures. Takedown demands. DHS has too much power and too little oversight.

  53. Voting Systems - Even as we speak.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The UK is holding a referendum on wether to ditch "First past the post" in favour of AV, a multiple preference system with a target voter percentage ( Obligatory BBC explaination of the system ). As counting of the referendum votes will only be starting as I write, I can't say how things will pan out. However indications are that AV will be rejected, mainly on the grounds that a manipulation of "second, and possibly third thoughts" denies a not inconsiderable body of voters who voted for the initially leading candidate a voice. Its a mechanical coilition system with unintended consequences.

    Of course, true proportional representation destroys local representation entirely and reduces candidate selection to unaccountable nominees to a regional list. It may be more efficient, but it also increases the separation of people and politicians.

    At least with FPP, you get to see your local representative when they need to be elected again! :-)

    1. Re:Voting Systems - Even as we speak.... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      Well yes, if proportional was your only option.

      I'm rather a fan of "instant-runoff" voting myself. There are so many different options that perhaps the scheme itself should be something that is re-considered every so often..

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  54. Gov. stupidity led to failure by zer01ife · · Score: 1

    Those dumbies doesn't have any idea or reason of why would or should do such actions.

  55. Incorrect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The SA was purged after the "night of the long knife" in the middle 30, long before the war or even horrors like the Krystalnacht. Whereas they were gathering violent people, bully, and saw themselves as replacement of the german army , they were not that "evil". The SS on the other hand were downright evil in their act. But by 1934 the SA were only existent in name.

  56. So then... by FunPika · · Score: 1

    How much longer until DHS decides to cause certain Mozilla-owned domain names to mysteriously disappear for [del]promoting pir[/del]...err "national security"?

    --
    After years of not using a signature, I am going to make one to say the following: Fuck Beta
  57. Let me explain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand this anti-government mentality

    That's because you believe in government. You believe that the people who control the business of government work for you, not themselves. You believe that they respect you and do what's right for you. I don't blame you; the majority believes exactly that. If the common man didn't believe it, government wouldn't be so successful (as a money-making business, not as a solution to any social problem).

    We don't believe any of that. We believe that the people at the top of the pyramid work precisely for themselves, always, and by definition. An organization that demands a special right to employ physical force as a business model cannot logically be working for the same people they employ physical force over. It just doesn't make any sense.

    We do not accept the social contract theory, which claims that an individual volunteers himself to be subject to coercion. Think about that: he volunteers himself to be subject to coercion. You don't see anything fishy about that, do you? Well, I do. The two modes of human interaction, voluntary association and coercion, are mutually exclusive and opposite. That is precisely what gives them meaning. They are defined in terms of each other. A man cannot volunteer himself to be subject to coercion, any more than he can coerce another man to volunteer. The idea is simply invalid and illogical. Where there is coercion, voluntary association does not exist. Period.

    But the best way to sum up my view of government and politics is this (and you're not going to like it): I view government as the largest, most successful scam in human history. I consider it a religion. The people at the bottom of the pyramid just can't stop believing the people at the top, even as they're laughing all the way to the bank. It's all the common man has ever known, and he can't imagine a world without government and its special "right" to employ coercion -- just as the religious man cannot imagine a world without his superiors telling him how to think and what to believe.

    Go ahead, consider me the enemy. But always remember that I'm not the one claiming a special right to employ physical force against you for my own benefit. I would never accept such a power, even if it was handed to me no strings attached. Why? Because I actually believe in every single word I just wrote. I respect you every bit as much as I respect every other individual on this planet -- as much as I respect myself. I believe it's our duty to respect others as we respect ourselves (unlike those who employ coercion as their means).

    Let me guess: I'm still the enemy.

  58. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by Laurence0 · · Score: 1

    How does this plugin differ (in effect, rather than methodology) from an independant DNS server? From the description I've read, the plugin looks at the urls you enter, checks them with the server and if (say) demonoid.com has appeared on their list, they send back demonoid.me instead, so you get forwarded to the still-live site. Why not just run another DNS server and keep pointing demonoid.com to the correct IP address?

  59. Re:So Glad by rwv · · Score: 1

    Pirates are groups of people who rape, torture, steal, and ransom for their own benefit. They're known for phrases like "Shiver me timbers, matey" though that stereotype may no longer be quite accurate as piracy has be forced to evolve since the times of "walking the plank". In any case, DHS has every right to put a stop to rapists, torturers, thieves, and child pornographers.

    I think what you mean is "copyright infringers" and "child porn" websites shouldn't be in the same category. Indeed, though claims have been made that copyright infringement has cost the industry upwards of 72 trillion dollars, there is a plethora of evidence that copying bits over a network for free generates more sales than would occur if the "try before you buy" method was not in place.

    Also unacknowledged is the issue that most people don't have thousands of disposable income per year to devote to movies, television shows, books, video games, and music. The content production industry should rest assured knowing that people are up to their necks in housing and gasoline price debt that the mild enjoyment received from copyright infringed material is a blessing.

    That's right... I said it. DHS should go after corrupt real estate businesses and oil companies.

  60. Has Mozilla's Fire FoxAdd-on search been censored? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for what its worth..
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/mafiaafire-redirector/

    After reading this article, I initially tried to find the add-on by using the Fire Fox Add-on search window https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/ but the search didn't return any results.

    It appears that Mozilla's Fire Fox Add-on search is being censored.

  61. Because DHS runs Customs by Quila · · Score: 1

    And Customs is in the business of copyright enforcement, originally to keep infringing copies out of the country as they go through Customs.

  62. Ruling Class by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You may be somewhat wealthy, but you might want to think twice before you think you're in the "ruling class." I assume that every few months your Senator comes to your house for a visit. When you pay him something under-the-table or otherwise make an arrangement whereby his re-election campaign will be able afford an extra week of TV advertisement, you of course mention your own concerns to him and hand him an envelope not just of cash, but of the already-written-for-his-convenience legislative text that he is supposed to pass. But are you a member of the ruling class? It depends. A few months later when that Senator is explaining why your bill needs support, he is going to be saying some transparently-stupid things on TV. If you grin and say, "Ha! He's actually doing it! This is amazing!" then you're not a member of the ruling class. On the other hand, if you just unemotionally nod and then wait with anticipation for your other guy to make the seemingly-reasonable compromise proposal to the legislation which really serves your interests, then yes, you're ruling class.

    You're ruling class if you're paying tens of thousands of dollars per year for diversions from your corruption. If you're merely playing the bribery game right now, you're one of the pawns.

  63. Jefferson also said: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What rights are you quibbling about, right to an Internet domain name? Sorry, not buying it. Name one right being oppressed, and who grants it if applicable.

    The right to due process you idiot.
    Please don't use Jefferson when supporting this government. If Jefferson was alive today he would be jailed.

    Jefferson also said:
    A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.

    Bodily decay is gloomy in prospect, but of all human contemplations the most abhorrent is body without mind.

    Every generation needs a new revolution.

    Force is the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.

    I am mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, the sale of a book can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too.

    I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.

    I know of no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.

    I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it.

  64. Social Security done properly? You're funny. by Quila · · Score: 2

    Social Security was absolutely done improperly. The money wasn't saved in any fashion whatsoever for the future. The "trust fund" consists of money loaned to the US government, which already borrowed and spent it all.

    It is an unsupportable ponzi scheme and will collapse if left in its present form.

    1. Re:Social Security done properly? You're funny. by slimjim8094 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you mean, social security was *managed* improperly. If run as designed, it would have a massive surplus at the moment, which is why the government pilfered from its coffers of course. That was a dumb idea, because had they not the program would be in no trouble today.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  65. Good for them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is the DHS interested in protecting media and other manufacturers? This is a useful tool, and more and more necessary against a government that is over-stepping its authority.

  66. Voting != Democracy by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    We could vote out Tweedledee and elect Tweedledum, it's pretty irrelevant, although I still advocate voting in every election just as if it were important. (I should have gone to Vegas back in the '80s and bet against my slate, as my record was 100% contrary to who won, now I guess the fix is in as it's not QUITE so consistent.) In the olden days, when I was a kid, it seemed normal to watch the evening news and hear about peaceful protesters being gunned down and/or arrested. We used to hear the score in Vietnam like it was a sporting event, I notice we don't ever hear how many "insurgents" (or bystanders) we are slaughtering in other people's countries any more, only about our own righteous warriors who are being murdered by those sneaky cowards. Other than that nothing much has changed in my lifetime, so don't tell me it won't happen again. Democracy is only legal here because the candidates, courts, and television stations are owned by the "right people".
    You just think you're being ironic, the irony is how correct you are.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  67. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by sjames · · Score: 1

    You never know, a lot of entirely innocent and completely unrelated websites have been pulled down "by accident". You could be autistic with a laser sharp focus of interest on butterflies of the Antarctic and still find a site you visit taken down.

  68. "The likes of which (you) hope never to see again" by IBitOBear · · Score: 1

    The only way to assure you never see again such likes is to have everybody stomp down very hard indeed when people and organizations and governments try to crawl onto the upper reaches of the slippery slope which leads to the depths of those likes.

    The word you are missing in your complaint is "yet", the DHS does not _YET_ merit a claim of one-for-one congruency to the SA.

    And "yet" the DHS is very like the precursors to the SA, so the comparison is apt. "Comparison" is not evil, and as the congruency grows, as the demand and abuses swell, the fact that the comparison is becoming more true, that it is progressing from 0.0 on its way to 1.0 correlation _is_ the cause for concern and validates the comparison.

    With every good and bad governmental precedent hanging in a coordinate space, each new and/or evolving agency _should_ and _must_ be compared to any valid data point.

    If we do not remain vigilant, not becomes yet becomes soon becomes now.

    You cannot prevent a new SA if you are unwilling to police your own government's behavior with respect to the old one.

    It is not enough to _hope_ you never see this stuff again, you must press on against its formation about you.

    If you chose to rely on the "if I don't see it, it isn't happening" level of hope, you will find soon enough that your hopes have been dashed.

    You should not -ever- decry a comparison between action and previous failures, as such comparison is the fruit of learning. To ban learning and the lessons of the past that teach it from the ongoing political discourse is to encourage the past to reoccur.

    To Quote: The past does not repeat, but it does rhyme.

    The future abuses will not be identical to the past, but it is the similarity in precursor and outcome that should let you know that ugly bits very like the previous ugly bits are about to come round again at the end of the stanza.

    --
    Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
    --"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
  69. managed = done by Quila · · Score: 1

    It was done/managed/executed improperly. Its conception was improperly done if it allowed for the mismanagement, which it did.

    Our government will always spend whatever money it takes.

  70. Re:Copyright enfringement a national security issu by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    Because all of the government agencies that really are charged with defending the country (Military, CIA, FBI, etc.) were too politically powerful to allow themselves to be subsumed into a new agency. So it just became a grab-bag of smaller less prestigous agencies like FEMA, INS, etc.

    My SWAG would be that they viewed the ability to confiscate domains as a cyber-secuirity issue. That agency is so unfocused though, it could have been damn near anything.

  71. Re:Crazy glue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The add-on was not code reviewed at the time, so it didn't appear on search results. Now it appears as experimental because the developers haven't submitted the add-on to a more thorough review yet.

  72. stop voting them in by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Stop voting the MOFOs in ok.

    NONE OF THE ABOVE.

    Sack em all.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
  73. Re:Objectivity by hoboroadie · · Score: 1

    Sorry about that, I'm only personally familiar with three acknowledged Tea Party advocates, and they are (big-time) reactionary assholes, IMHO. They are also big fans of "Michael Savage" and Rush Limbaugh, if those names mean anything to you. Otherwise, I'm just going by what I've seen on television, which has given me the impression that the other Tea Party supporters were also pretty much as ignorant. I suppose I should research their official position on things. I've read a couple books each by Rush Limbaugh, and "Michael Savage", respectively, and offhand I can't think of anything as painful that I can compare that to. Water-boarding? presstv.ir and foxnews.com are pretty brutal, but not quite in the same league. I may just be exhibiting my bias, as we each have our own perception of reality. I work pretty hard trying to keep my reality objective. I know I could be wrong, and these teabaggers I'm referring to won't admit that they could possibly be wrong; make of that what you will, but it tells me that they are not adept at critical thinking. I've hung out with some pretty liberal folks; most of them, e.g. Charlie Brown Artman, Mario Savio, & Steve Soliah* were what I'd call deep thinkers, though as a group I'd say an awful lot of liberals are about as ignorant as anyone- Judy Bari comes to mind, (that LOUD bitch could have had some deep thoughts but it was hard to discern), and all the brain-fried hippies you see when they get on television, so I reckon maybe my source could be tainted. Do you identify with the Tea Party people that have been shown on TV? or is that a misrepresentation? Am I missing something? BTW, I disagree pretty totally with the platforms of both major parties, as well. I'd identify myself more as a classic liberal, think Friedrich Hayek maybe. I suppose I need to put up a website of my own to expose my ideas to some mass criticism, rather than clogging up /. with offtopic shite.

    *We never really talked about that SLA thing, I think he developed more wisdom since those days.

    --
    They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
  74. Re:Never heard of Mafiaafire, but I'll check it ou by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Department of Heimat Streisand?

    Hmmm. Coolness.

  75. The best you have is a "mod down"? LMAO! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject-line, because IF that's "the best you've got", vs. disproving the technical points I made? I win, as per usual...

    ( &, now, the folks reading who are not aware of the benefits of HOSTS files now are aware of them, and the fact they have EASY full control of them as well, via easily done text editor (notepad.exe) edits, as well as valid reputable sources for populating them also).

    APK

    P.S.=> However, the nicest part is, folks reading also see you "running away" & doing "hit & run mod downs" only, which is totally effete & useless, vs. facts!

    ... apk