EU Speaks Out Against US Censorship

bs0d3 writes "The EU Parliament has adopted, 'by a large majority,' a statement warning the US to refrain 'from unilateral measures to revoke IP addresses or domain names' due to the 'need to protect the integrity of the global internet and freedom of communications.' This resolution highlights both the practices prescribed in SOPA/PIPA... but also the actions of Homeland Security and ICE in seizing domain names. By adopting a resolution against domains seizures the European Parliament recognizes the dangerous precedent the pending SOPA legislation would set, and it wouldn't be a surprise if more foreign criticism follows. No country should have the ability to simply take over international domain names, and surely the US would feel the same if this plan was put in motion by a foreign country. Or as some 60 press freedom and human rights advocate groups put it in their letter to the US representatives: 'This is as unacceptable to the international community as it would be if a foreign country were to impose similar measures on the United States.'"

Comments

US, get out

[CmdrPony]

As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable. Even China doesn't try to restrict other countries. They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same. Yet US has the balls and hypocrisy to accuse China about its censorship practices, as do most US citizens here on Slashdot.

US is much worse than China. They try to force their views and laws globally. They install their own law enforcement agents inside other countries in the name of "providing training" to manipulate. They revoke IP addresses and domains used by non-US people. They try to extradite people from other countries to jail them for years in US soil. Have you noticed that most of world has actually sane amount of years you have to spend in jail if you do something bad? In US the minimum seems to be at least 10 years. Usually you can go in for life. Sometimes several lifes. In most civilized countries, you're only going to be spending more than 10 years if you kill somebody. In the same way, the sentences are longer if you physically harm someone. Not for downloading a fucking song off the internet.

This doesn't even only apply to copyright laws. This is just common practice with everything. For example, in most of Asia and South America there was nothing wrong with using some drugs. That is, before US started their whole war on drugs thing and couldn't just keep it within it's own borders. They had to start going around the world telling people what to do. Don't you seriously have better things to spend money on, like fixing your damn problems first? Regardless, there is nothing wrong with smoking some pot. It's both more relaxing and healthy than alcohol, which causes several health problems in people (and makes some people really aggressive).

And yet, US acts all surprised when they are told to get the fuck out, after which they bring out the guns and start shooting people. US is the only country in the world that has been constantly in war with at least one country. Usually there is several enemies. The whole world would be much saner, happier and peaceful place without US.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US citizen, Believe me when I say that most other US citizens will agree with you.
...well, most sane ones. The number of which is rapidly dropping.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Amen

(embarrassed to be an American)
EDIT: Captcha was Justice

Re:US, get out

[Psmylie]

As a US citizen, I also find these practices unacceptable. The current mentality of complete control by our government has gotten entirely too far out of hand in this country. I vote my conscience in every election, and I write letters and am as politically active as I can be while still holding down a job, but there's only so much I can do when so many of my fellow Americans are bound and determined to allow our own government to undermine everything that our country is supposed to stand for.

Actions like this by the EU are pretty much the last hope I have of something may give the US the wake up call that we so desperately need. Unfortunately, with the US's current extremely confrontational attitude, the only reaction that I can see is a bunch of angry griping about how the rest of the world just better shut up and stay out of our business. Still, I applaud the EU and anyone else that refuses to tow the US-mandated line.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

You act like everyone doesn't already know all this. :)

Re:US, get out

[CmdrPony]

That's a little hard when ICANN and Verisign (the company that handles .com .net and even some other countries TLD's) are US companies, don't you think?

But your idea is good, in a way. We just need to move the control out of US. We should have done so ages ago. Move what ICANN and the global TLD's under some new body that only has certain established rules and doesn't mandate any single country's laws to their policies. Or move them under United Nations.

US can keep their .us TLD, which is the actual TLD given to United States.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you trolling? (I'm not, btw, but can't tell from your tone)

> I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.

China being China, why do you want to justify US actions based on their example? Are you living in United States of China, by chance?

> Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.

Come on! What bases from other countries are operating on US ground? I hope you're not being paid too much!

> In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now.

What's fair about this? Unless you define policing like Rodney King.

> And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.

Yes, you're doing them a favor. Right.

It's guys like you who create an awful image of the USA for us foreigners.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm a US citizen and my domains aren't registered here.

Re:US, get out

[next_ghost]

In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.

They're policing the world in the same sense a bully "polices" his classroom. In either case, nobody asked them to and nobody wants them to.

They try to extradite people from other countries to jail them for years in US soil.

Not that often. And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.

Orly? Who will be glad for the US taking the case when Julian Assange gets extradited?

Re:US, get out

[chispito]

...They do what they have to do inside their country

That's right, let China do whatever it wants to its own 1.3 billion citizens, just don't let them take down my torrent site.

Re:US, get out

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

I agree with the statement as well. The problem is that it doesn't matter how many people get upset. Our government is bought and paid for and normal citizens simply can't outbid corporations. The most ironic situation in my mind is in a few decades we have to overthrow our government and look to Europe for help.

Re:US, get out

[nurb432]

Yes that was the case, but today, there are other options for people that don't want to register here in the US. Which is my point, no one is forced.

And no the UN is a bad answer, for ANY question. ( well except if you are asking what should be disbanded )

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Why dew hate 'merica son?

Re:US, get out

[BMOC]

Have you seen the approval ratings of the U.S. Congress? They are abysmal and have been there for a very long time. This group does not represent its citizens, not by a longshot. This is an example of what happens when corporations corrupt a representative process.

Re:US, get out

[jd]

This is why NO key element in the Internet Backbone should belong to any individual corporation or any individual country. The backlash against the UN owning them was, I think, a serious mistake by geeks. Assuming a benign (even relatively speaking) US is clearly bogus. Placing ownership completely outside of any nation is the best hope we have. True, the UN hasn't exactly been perfect, but it is the closest we have to a multinational system that special interests (including the special interests of specific national agencies) cannot readily control.

In and of itself, though, this is not sufficient. We'd have to move away from the spanning tree topology currently popular on the Internet (because it's cheap) and move to as close to a full mesh topology - even across international borders - as finances permit.

The first part makes overt control much more difficult. The second part makes covert control much more difficult. Without both, total control - including over other nations - remains a possibility. This MUST be stopped.

I do not believe that private corporations, who are slaves to profits, are capable of deploying such a mesh. It would be expensive and would eliminate the congestion problems they're using as excuses to hike rates, so they'd be spending more and earning less. Shareholders would never permit it. That means the Internet can only be run either by a quango (a semi-devolved agency, similar to the British BBC, where it runs independently via an established charter even though it is government-funded) OR by a non-profit group that also has core policy defined by charter but is funded by the userbase.

So a UN quango (ie: the UN can only negotiate and enforce the terms of the charter, and where it is legally obliged to pay the charter-defined amount annually, but the quango is otherwise politically outside of the UN) would be the logical solution. It would defeat nationalists usurping the Internet, it would prevent many of the problems feared when UN ownership has been talked of before, but the UN would be contractually obliged to provide any and all protections necessary to stop nations threatening other nations' usage.

I don't seriously expect to get a positive response to this, but I can honestly think of no other solution since everything else has been tried and been shown to be a disaster.

Re:US, get out

[CmdrPony]

You seem to think that it's living hell for Chinese, every day. It's not. Having lived there (and elsewhere in the Asia) for long time, it's really peaceful and nice. Even cops act like human beings, compared to the US mentality of shooting first, asking questions later. The only thing you cannot do is try to get a gathering of millions of people to riot on streets. Do you honestly think such a thing would be good in China, with billions of people? It would turn the country in turmoil. And besides, it wouldn't be allowed in US either. Hell, in US you apparently get arrested for dancing.

Re:US, get out

[jd]

Rumour has it that the movie Idiocracy was actually made by Nostrodamus and was a prediction of world affairs in the 21st century.

Re:US, get out

[rickb928]

Moving them to the United Nations doesn't solve or prevent anything, but the concept is good.

Since these corporations need to be somewhere, it will never be about where they are, it will always be about sanity in managing these core Internet functions. And that means dealing with governments, and we Americans need to once again shower our representatives with enlightened advice, as in 'don't DO that!!!'.

Seriously, I have to get my reps' addresses out ahd hit them with informative emails, pointing out that no matter how much they want to 'solve' this copyright problem, this is NOT the solution. Argh.

Re:US, get out

[Raumkraut]

Orly? Who will be glad for the US taking the case when Julian Assange gets extradited?

Julian Assange will. He'll get the massive publicity that he craves, plus the smug satisfaction that he was right.

Re:US, get out

[CrackedButter]

Move ICANN to Norway. Best country in the world, I speak as a non-native.

Re:US, get out

[MachDelta]

ARIN still handles the IP addresses for Canada and the Caribbean. It is located in the US and there is no alternative.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

I propose the following:

1) Only Citizens capable of voting in an election can contribute to campaigns they are eligible to vote on.

2) PACs cannot donate to Campaigns to ELECTED offices.

3) Corporations cannot donate to Campaigns.

4) Unions cannot donate to Campaigns.

Corporations and Unions can run their own damn campaigns making it clear exactly where the $$ is coming from. Further, Corporations and Unions would be forbidden to form "PACs" for the purposes of obfuscating financing.

But I would also REVOKE all personal donation limits to campaigns, provided that they are from Citizens eligible to vote for those representatives. I'm NOT restricting Corporations or Unions from Political Speech, just making it clear that they have to run their own campaigns for the candidates they want to support, with clear notifications of who is sponsoring the campaigns.

Our Liberties have been watered down and diluted by Corporations and Unions making unrestricted contributions to political parties.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.

I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.

Persecuting ones citizen for things they have done abroad is not that unusual, even though what the Chinese government did was very wrong. But it is in no way the same as blocking or manipulating other countries, not even close. Who modded this "informative"?

US is the only country in the world that has been constantly in war with at least one country

In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.

The US has commited war crimes and broken several international laws. Your bias towards the US and blindness to it's faults has come pretty obvious by now

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you. The problem with US citizens is that when they can cast their vote for the federal elections, there's a button "D" and a button "R" and, at least for privacy (PATRIOT) and intellectual property rights (MickeyMouse/DMCA/ACTA/E-PARASITE/SOPA) it makes no difference which one they press. The "D" and "R" agree as well that there should never be anything like proportional representation, ensuring the continued validity of their oligopoly.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable. Even China doesn't try to restrict other countries. They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same. Yet US has the balls and hypocrisy to accuse China about its censorship practices, as do most US citizens here on Slashdot.

US is much worse than China. They try to force their views and laws globally. They install their own law enforcement agents inside other countries in the name of "providing training" to manipulate. They revoke IP addresses and domains used by non-US people. They try to extradite people from other countries to jail them for years in US soil. Have you noticed that most of world has actually sane amount of years you have to spend in jail if you do something bad? In US the minimum seems to be at least 10 years. Usually you can go in for life. Sometimes several lifes. In most civilized countries, you're only going to be spending more than 10 years if you kill somebody. In the same way, the sentences are longer if you physically harm someone. Not for downloading a fucking song off the internet.

This doesn't even only apply to copyright laws. This is just common practice with everything. For example, in most of Asia and South America there was nothing wrong with using some drugs. That is, before US started their whole war on drugs thing and couldn't just keep it within it's own borders. They had to start going around the world telling people what to do. Don't you seriously have better things to spend money on, like fixing your damn problems first? Regardless, there is nothing wrong with smoking some pot. It's both more relaxing and healthy than alcohol, which causes several health problems in people (and makes some people really aggressive).

And yet, US acts all surprised when they are told to get the fuck out, after which they bring out the guns and start shooting people. US is the only country in the world that has been constantly in war with at least one country. Usually there is several enemies. The whole world would be much saner, happier and peaceful place without US.

Wish I could +1 your post.

Re:US, get out

[suomynonAyletamitlU]

I don't hate America, but I do tend to hate its leadership. The two are distinctly different. Same with China--I don't doubt most of those billion citizens are great people who, language barriers aside, I'd be happy to be friends with. Same, indeed, with most nations that we're not politically aligned with.

If only the politicians, corporate officers, media moguls, etc, were the people in the trenches when the wars come.

Re:US, get out

[X0563511]

Well, speaking for myself, because it's mostly full of people like you.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US citizen I find it amusing anytime someone from the EU says anything about US censorship. I also agree that we shouldn't police the world. I think we should let all of Europe speak German next time. I'm glad being a US citizen gives me the right to say just about anything I want. Europe doesn't provide you with those same protections. If you think it does trying saying the Holocaust didn't happen in Holland, or wear a Nazi symbol in Germany, how about saying anything resembling a disdain for Islam or Muslims while in France. In all fairness, I like most Muslims, I despise Nazis and I firmly believe the Holocaust did in fact occur. I just believe in a person's right to be as ignorant and wrong as they want. Which is why, even if given the power, I would not stop you from running your mouth. In most civilized countries we realize words and symbols only have as much power as you give them. I agree the US war on drugs is a failed policy. I agree we should let the world police themselves. As a matter of fact I think the US should not help anyone in the EU until all of our current debt is paid off. We should wash our hands of you completely. I think we should close all of our foreign military bases. We should not allow any foreign military to train with us. In fact I believe the United States with be a much saner, happier and peaceful place without the EU. As to the internet. Fuck you we invented it. Invent something better and then you can control it then we would be stuck being simpering whine bags just like YOU!

Re:US, get out

[X0563511]

Well, not entirely.

For example, the DemandProgress guys have been fighting the internet backlist bill for a while. Just yesterday I got a notice that 800,000 people had sent correspondence to their representatives about it. That's just the ONE group... and almost a million people.

This bill keeps getting put on the table and slapped down. I'm hoping (perhaps naively) that we have something to do with it.

Re:US, get out

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Every one of those suggestions makes a ton of sense (I may even borrow a few of them for future arguments) but we'll never see them applied. The goal of those in power is to retain that power, your proposal would threaten that.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid. There's no "fairness" in the US policing the world. Throw up the cool aid and listen to what even your compatriots recognize.

Re:US, get out

[mug funky]

politicians hide themselves away. they only started the war. why should they go out to fight? they leave that all to the poor.

yeah.

Re:US, get out

[mug funky]

bigass [citation needed]

i've yet to hear anything but paranoid speculation that the US will go after Assange when the UK send him to Sweden.

say what you will about the EAW, and the circumstances involved in issuing it, the guy has a case to answer, and he doesn't seem to realise that clearing his name is the best way to win back the trust of the world. right now he's just a paranoid manchild who things didn't go right for, and he's grumbling.

Re:US, get out

[Nadaka]

Actually a lot of people want us and ask us to police the world.

The Kuwaiti and Saudi leadership did when Saddam rolled in. NATO does when we fund the bulk of their military capabilities.

The US has a shitload of problems and flaws, but you are off base there.

Re:US, get out

[denzacar]

I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.

China was monitoring US internet communication back in 1989?

Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.

CGCC is not another country. It is an American "research and policy institute".

And a government hiring private instructors to train its law enforcement/military is not the same thing as should that government provide its own law enforcement or military as "advisers" to other governments or forces within other countries.
One of those is a public act well within the domain of any government.
The other thing is usually the result of a government trying to wage a secretive war without getting its hands dirty or without the consent of its people.

In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.

Well, you're right about that. No other country in the world could dream of reaching USA's score.

Not that often.

And why should they? When they can simply "render" them. Extraordinarily.

And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.

All the best generalizations start with "Generally...".

Re:US, get out

[Nadaka]

You forgot to place similar restrictions on religious organizations. I don't want religious corruption and evil influencing politics either.

Re:US, get out

[Larryish]

Land of the Flea, Home of the Slave?

To the tune of Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the U.S.A.":

I was born in America,
Where I'm often told I'm free.

I voted for the piece of shit
who told that lie to me.

And I'll gladly stand up next to you
At the all-you-can-eat buffet.

I can't afford
To move abroad...

Trapped in the U.S.A.

I can't afford
To move abroad...

Trapped in the U.S.A.

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

The whole world would be much saner, happier and peaceful place without US.

under Nazi rule! And yes, I will play this card. The world didn't like the US policy of isolationism during World War II. We were trying to mind our business and stay out of everyone elses. (I'm not saying that this was the correct position.) Do you really think that after WWII the European countries would not have fallen to communism one-by-one if the US had not had a presence in Europe? And now that you are safe you don't want us around. Talk about hypocrisy!

Now hating the US and its influence seems to be the craze. The US gets a lot of things wrong like IP patents but we're not totally with positive qualities.

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

That's a little hard when ICANN and Verisign (the company that handles .com .net and even some other countries TLD's) are US companies, don't you think? The US can keep their .us TLD, which is the actual TLD given to United States.

You are sadly mistaken. The ".com" registrar is in the US because the US created the software, hardware, and domain name. Eventually, the US opened it up to foreign registrants. But if you don't like the way the US administers the domain, register your domain name somewhere else.

Re:US, get out

[dyingtolive]

Just remember, the actions of our government do not reflect the views of its citizens. Don't hate us for what "our country" has become. Our government has been hijacked and does not reflect the beliefs and desires of it's populace.

Re:US, get out

[nonegalk]

So lash out against his text by doing the same thing but with an pro-american tone. Bravo, sir, bravo...

Re:US, get out

[znrt]

Actions like this by the EU are pretty much the last hope

could also be the last joke.

I wonder if this tension is real. For the US (with the biggest share in mass ip money making) this aggressive move pushes forward the idea that something has to be done, it puts the issue on the international agenda. On the other hand, this tension depicts EU as a trustworthy protector of civil rights to the eyes of e-populace. An ideal partner for US to start working with on the real thing that (rasp) has to be done, say ... global censorship? A game as old as humanity, it's called "the good cop and the bad cop".

(As an EU citizen I don't trust EU politicians. They are just as fucked up as americans.)

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh!

Re:US, get out

[cyber-vandal]

Who are the US troops protecting us from? The 9,000 or so that are based in the UK are not needed for any defence as we have nearly 200,000 of our own, not to mention a navy and an air force, and, despite what 14 year old American zitbags think, we have nuclear weapons. Now if we were living in 1971 you might have a point, but it was as much in the interests of the USA to keep its major export market out of enemy hands as it was for us to be kept out of the Warsaw Pact.

You could also mention WW2 but we paid you back for that in 2006, so thanks for the loan but it doesn't mean we have to kiss your 1%'s asses for all eternity.

Re:US, get out

[nonegalk]

As another EU citizen, I'll politely ask you to stop writing. Or if you persist, do not identify yourself as an EU citizen.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

> If Europeans didn't want US troops in Europe, they could leave NATO, ask US troops to leave, and pay for their own defense.

I'm not sure what you where you got your info from but Europe actually DOES pay for it's own defence. NATO is a defence ALLIANCE and the only thing it's european members has gotten out of it so far is having to help fight some US war in Afghanistan where the US says it's fighting for democracy, despite the fact that they are protecting a corrupt, incompetent ruler who by NATOs help still is president despite loosing the last election.

You really do not know much about what's going on outside the US, do you?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

"As to the internet. Fuck you we invented it."

Yes, to plan wars. Nobody used it until a Brit invented the world wide web in Geneva.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't want religious corruption and evil influencing politics either."

Too late. And its only going to get worse.

Re:US, get out

[znrt]

I propose the following:

1) Only Citizens capable of voting in an election can contribute to campaigns they are eligible to vote on.
2) PACs cannot donate to Campaigns to ELECTED offices.
3) Corporations cannot donate to Campaigns.
4) Unions cannot donate to Campaigns.

Funny, that's how it is in Spain and, know what? This just pops up another black market, and the result is just more opacity.

Corporations and Unions can run their own damn campaigns making it clear exactly where the $$ is coming from.

It is quite clear in the US, many of us in Spain would like to have it so. The real problem is another one: people simply don't care, don't want no know.

Re:US, get out

[CmdrPony]

> I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.

China being China, why do you want to justify US actions based on their example? Are you living in United States of China, by chance?

Not only that, but it also interesting that China already had such a large internet monitoring system inside US back in the 1989.

GP i just talking out of his ass.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you are wrong. The United States is not policing the world right now. The United States has occupying armies in various countries to protect it's own economic interests and nothing more. As for extraditions, yeah right I am sure that the UK is really happy that the Americans want to extradite that 16 year old master criminal with the website that provides links to streaming TV shows because as you know that is a REAL threat to the safety of the world..

Re:US, get out

[znrt]

They are just as fucked up as americans

Ooops, I meant "US politicians". :-)

Re:US, get out

[aBaldrich]

As a Latin American and EU citizen, all I can tell you is... this is not new, get used to it!
Also, bear in mind that "US government" is not equivalent to "US people".

Re:US, get out

[Pseudonym Authority]

Maybe you could start using .eu? Brilliant idea, no? Or is this your Eurocentric vision of a world without the US talking?

Re:US, get out

[Nadaka]

Corporate corruption is infecting government already. The idea is to restrict evil and corruption, render it impotent and with enough effort, purge it regardless of its source.

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

Who are the US troops protecting us from?

Ask your own politicians. I mean, US troops aren't there for fun, they are there as part of the NATO defense pact. If the UK considers it no longer necessary, it can simply leave NATO. And since WWII, the UK keeps asking for US help with European problems:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ace535c2-b088-11e0-a5a7-00144feab49a.html

But worry not: US politicians are increasingly getting tired of this b.s. Maybe soon you'll be able to clean up the messes that European colonialism left around the world and in your backyard yourself again.

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

You could also mention WW2 but we paid you back for that in 2006, so thanks for the loan but it doesn't mean we have to kiss your 1%'s asses for all eternity.

Really? How much was all the US blood that was shed worth, you pompous troll?

The 9,000 or so that are based in the UK are not needed for any defence

Then please tell your government to tell my government to send them home. We'll save some money.

Re:US, get out

[Pseudonym Authority]

Why are even apologizing to this guy? It's like he hits you in the face and you apologize for having your face in his way. Grow some balls and stop being a bitch.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

The US is like any other bully: big, stupid and easy to manipulate when you're smarter.

Foreign countries only like the US' "policing" when it suits their own needs. Take Libya as an example. France and England just had to point to Libya and say, "HEY! Look at all that lunch money that kid has!" And off the bully goes to trounce them. (While British and French hands stay nice and clean.)

Re:US, get out

[grcumb]

This is why NO key element in the Internet Backbone should belong to any individual corporation or any individual country. The backlash against the UN owning them was, I think, a serious mistake by geeks.

You contradict yourself. UN ownership is, effectively, license for individual nations to do as they see fit within their own borders, and to legitimise arbitrary control of core elements of the Internet.

That in itself doesn't represent a significant change from the state of things today, except that it provides a framework to drag the entire network down to a lower common denominator where freedom is concerned.

The track record of IT-related UN agencies is decidedly mixed. WIPO has accepted as gospel numerous conceptions about so-called Intellectual Property that are anathema to most people here on Slashdot. Perhaps the most egregious example is of the chair of the organisation suggesting that the World Wide Web should have been patented and licensed. Cory Doctorow rightly calls this statement "a remarkable triumph of ideology over evidence."

The ITU, which is responsible for many telecoms and radio-related standards, fares somewhat better. They render a useful service and have been instrumental in ensuring that telcos world-wide don't end up locking their respective markets away from others. Nonetheless, when some functionaries at the UN-sponsored World Summit on Internet Society suggested in 2004 that the ITU could take ICANN's place, the idea was rejected wholesale.

ICANN sucks in important ways, but it is at least a technical body (influenced, admittedly, more than it should be by Verisign and co.). The imposition of a UN mandate over the Internet almost certainly implies a lot more legislation and regulation than most geeks would want to see.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.

Really? Tiananmen Square was in 1989. What kind of internet did you guys have access to? I didn't hear about "internet" for almost 10 more years after that.

Re:US, get out

[Tsingi]

Orly? Who will be glad for the US taking the case when Julian Assange gets extradited?

Julian Assange will. He'll get the massive publicity that he craves, plus the smug satisfaction that he was right.

Yup.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable.

Then don't register your domain here if you don't like the rules here. Problem solved.

The whole world would be much saner, happier and peaceful place without US.

ya, right, remember that the next time we bail your ass out of trouble. Idiot.

Oh the old "you owe us card", its pretty dangerous to hold that one because it cuts both ways. Well my friend what about what you owe us for having given you your independence in the first place. How much do you value that ? Maybe the French should regain possession of the Louisiana Territory ?
Is that a just compensation ? ^_^

Re:US, get out

[Dputiger]

http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Jails#Average You don't go to jail for 10 years, on average, for even violent felonies. Try doing a bit of research before you post. It'll makes you sound less American. ;)

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

NATO is a DEFENCE alliance, according to wikipedia "its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party". Saying that Europe isn't living up to it's commitement by not beeing enough involved in the Libyan civil war is just ridiculous, it had nothing to do with the defence of any of it's member states. This is just empty rethorics from Robert Gates. But I'm not supprised Faux News found this news worthy,

As for your last two comments, I'm not even gonna worthy them with commenting. Grow up

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

There was an active internet in academia well before there was a commercially used web. Usenet in particular, but also chinese newspapers via. gopher.

Re:US, get out

[brit74]

(sigh) Your response is not even close to being factual.

Even cops act like human beings, compared to the US mentality of shooting first, asking questions later.
Yeah, police in the US shoot people a good 80-90% of the time that they make routine traffic stops.

The only thing you cannot do is try to get a gathering of millions of people to riot on streets.
Really? That's the only thing you can't do in China? So, you're suggesting that you can criticize the Chinese government online and have no problems whatsoever? You'll also have no problems whatsoever if you get together a few thousand people for a peaceful demonstration? I'm sure the Chinese government would be happy to hear people protest for a Free Tibet or Falun Gong.

Do you honestly think such a thing would be good in China, with billions of people? It would turn the country in turmoil.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing here. What does "billions of people" have to do with it, since violent rioting isn't allowed anywhere. Of course, it doesn't matter because you started from a false premise anyway when you said, "millions of people to riot on streets".

And besides, it wouldn't be allowed in US either.
Violent rioting isn't allowed anywhere. But, like I said, that's not even the issue here since you seem to think the *only* thing you can't do in China is get "millions" of people together for a "riot".

Hell, in US you apparently get arrested for dancing
That's a stupid example. Apparently, there's some law against performance at the Jefferson memorial and dancing "stands out as a type of performance, creating its own center of attention and distracting from the atmosphere of solemn commemoration". It's a dumb law, but the way you wrote the sentence, you make it sound like dancing is, in general and in all places, illegal in the US.

Honestly, you sound like a paid agent of the Chinese government trying to put a good face on China's dismal record of political and religious crackdown. Let us know how much you get paid.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

>> Even China doesn't try to restrict other countries
Bullshit.

They try and prevent all sorts of people from meeting with the Dala Lama. They threw a hissy fit at France when Sarkozy met with him.

In New Zealand, Falun Gong were banned from participating in a Christmas parade in Welilngton in 2009 (which often has religious groups) due to pressure from the Chinese government. In 2010, with the local mayor being replaced with a Green Party member, the Falun Gong were allowed back.

But to say China doesn't try to restrict other countries is wrong. Both the US and China engage in that practice.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

China being China, why do you want to justify US actions based on their example? Are you living in United States of China, by chance?

There was a specific claim about Chinese behavior that was factually false.

jbolden: Other countries do that to. US forces are trained by foreign countries at the Center on Global Counterterrorism.

Come on! What bases from other countries are operating on US ground? I hope you're not being paid too much!

I think you should read the context. GP talked about policing. And I gave you a specific example. England, is the primary one, but Australia and Germany are heavily involved in the Center on Global Counterterrorism.

In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now.

What's fair about this? Unless you define policing like Rodney King.

What does Rodney King have to do with extradition?

I'm going to stop now. You need to read the posts you are responding to.

Re:US, get out

[scot4875]

Agreed 100% on everything except the details of letting individuals donate without limits, but I'd be perfectly willing to make that compromise to get the rest in place.

--Jeremy

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

If you want to start looking at numbers then WW2 was basically Germany vs. Russia, everything else was a sideshow.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.

They're policing the world in the same sense a bully "polices" his classroom. In either case, nobody asked them to and nobody wants them to.

Actually the US is frequently asked by countries involved to intervene. That's over and above international groups that frequently ask for those interventions.

Orly? Who will be glad for the US taking the case when Julian Assange gets extradited?

I suspect most European governments that think Wikileaks got out of hand. Besides right now this is UK and Sweden. You may not agree, but this is not US bullying. If the US were bullying Asange would have been rendered.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

If the government of the UK didn't believe the US is protecting you from anything, simply ask your government to not renew the status of forces agreement. Here is the agreement from your government Nato UK Safo.

If you don't like the UK government's policies stop blaming Americans.

Re:US, get out

[sgt scrub]

When god wrote and directed the move Idiocracy he mandated Republicans, Tbaggers, and the religiousity community interpret it literally.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

China was monitoring US internet communication back in 1989?

There wasn't a US internet in 1989. Usenet, gopher... were international. Because the internet wasn't focused on commerce, and there was no advertising, it was actually more international than it is today. The internet sites I was talking about though were in Chinese. I suspect the Chinese government got reports about what was going on, on those sites not directly monitored them, I don't know how it happened; what I do know is that it did.

CGCC is not another country. It is an American "research and policy institute".

Understood. Members of foreign police forces come their and train American forces. GP had argued that never happens. I would agree with your description of what is happening at CGCC, "a government hiring private instructors to train its law enforcement/military". You and I aren't disagreeing, you are disagreeing with GP.

The other thing is usually the result of a government trying to wage a secretive war without getting its hands dirty or without the consent of its people.

Agreed. The US assists other government against the will of their population. I claimed we had government support, not popular support.

Re:US, get out

[jd]

It is to avoid "legislation and regulation" that I suggested it should be a quango under charter from the UN and not run by the UN itself. This eliminates the apparent contradiction as well, since a chartered body would be protected from retaliation by the UN but would not be subservient to the UN. Quangos are different from agencies in the same way that the BBC is not a British government department. WIPO is as much our fault as geeks as it is the fault of the lobbyists who run it -- a world body was inevitable and we chose not to be it.

Just as yeast, bacteria, etc, form monocultures that are poisonous to potential competition, whatever culture gets globalized first becomes the monoculture in their domain and it's hard to impossible to replace it. By ignoring these structures, we're allowing toxic and pestilent entities to get there first. To judge what a non-toxic, chartered body would be like simply by examining toxic agencies that were allowed to form by us geeks being asleep at the wheel - that doesn't seem like the way to go.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

Gopher, usenet, email and some FTP. The web wasn't big until 1994 but there was plenty of activity on the internet prior to the web.

Re:US, get out

[icebraining]

Oh, come on. British influence was in the 19th century. It weren't the British who were funding the PDPA or arming the Mujahideen using billions of dollars.

Not to mention that the British aren't really Europeans /troll

Re:US, get out

[Pence128]

Oh, right, European colonial powers.

The Taliban and Al-Qaeda fucked them over, supported by Pakistan: best buddies of the USA.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I would actually take it further.

No man, woman, child, or corporation may donate to anyone who has more than 2% of the popular vote to get on the ballot. After that point, each candidate is given 10 million dollars for that campaign to use as they see fit and not place me offer better deals to one that they do not give to the other.

After elected, they will be paid for that position for life but in the process will be barred from working anywhere and for anyone else on the planet, the only job you will ever have at that point will be in government or retired so no more cushy jobs making millions after you leave.

Also, each election has 1 extra option on the ballot, "None of the above", if it gets the majority of the votes, an entirely new election must be run and all the current candidates are disqualified from running, repeat as needed till someone actually gets elected, would also remove the current voting system and put one in more sane and I would disband any party affiliations, can no longer be democrat, republican or any other, it will be for the candidate, not the party.

And I would also force any publicly stated promises into legally binding contracts where if they fail to attempt to deliver them or go against them without good cause, they are sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in no less than a medium security prison.

I have a lot more I would do, but then it goes a bit too far off topic if I stated them here.

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

NATO is a DEFENCE alliance, according to wikipedia "its member states agree to mutual defense in response to an attack by any external party". Saying that Europe isn't living up to it's commitement by not beeing enough involved in the Libyan civil war is just ridiculous,

Well, and I'm not saying that. Europe hasn't been living up to its financial commitments for decades, instead relying on the US to defend it, both during the cold war and afterwards. And you are absolutely right that Libya had nothing to do with NATO or NATO objectives, but it was the Europeans that called for the US to help with it. The US response to Europe should have been "fix your own damned problems". Unfortunately, if the US stops being involved, Europe will spiral down the economic or totalitarian drain again, and that's bad for the US as well.

You don't want the US telling you how to live your life? Then get your act together, pay for your own military, and fix your economies. It's as easy as that.

Re:US, get out

[Sique]

I had internet access in 1990. And the first Internet Relay Chat party here around was in 1987. I don't know why you didn't hear about the Internet until 10 years later.

Re:US, get out

[Sique]

And reclaim the Statue of Liberty too? :)

Re:US, get out

[CmdrPony]

I'm glad being a US citizen gives me the right to say just about anything I want. Europe doesn't provide you with those same protections. If you think it does trying saying the Holocaust didn't happen in Holland, or wear a Nazi symbol in Germany

You do know that it was US that made those laws, right?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

And reclaim the Statue of Liberty too? :)

Uhm no, we would let you keep it. You need a powerful symbol of hope in these dark times.
And by the way we already have one (smaller scale though) in Paris, right under the Pont de Grenelle. ;)

Re:US, get out

[Bucky24]

Actually I've noticed that the number of people who disagree with US policies is increasing. Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture.

Re:US, get out

[Bucky24]

And even if you can afford it no one wants Americans living there. Being tourists and spending money, yes, but living there, no.

Re:US, get out

[brit74]

Nice a-factual rant, you've got there.

As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable.
Oh, ok. I find some European practices unacceptable. For example, I don't think european countries should ban religious symbols or headscarves. I also don't think Europe should be allowing piracy. I know everyone likes to get stuff for free, but pirates don't have a sustainable economic model for the creation of digital media - except for the cheapest kinds, like TV shows (paid for by commercials) and YouTube videos. I hate to see what the world will become if piracy were the norm. I think europeans are being jerks by allowing groups like the PirateBay to continue operating. (Which is not to say that I agree with SOPA, but I do agree that things need to change.)

Even China doesn't try to restrict other countries.
That's good. Oh wait, wasn't there a recent story about Chinese hackers trying to take down a Fulun Gong website that was located outside China?
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/238655/china_hacking_video_shows_glimpse_of_falun_gong_attack_tool.html

Say, wasn't it China that put pressure on the US and other countries to shut-out the Dali Lama?
China Warns U.S. on Dalai Lama Trip, October 16, 2007 - http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/16/world/asia/16cnd-china.html
China: Obama visit with Dalai Lama has 'harmed Sino-U.S. relations' - Jul 16, 2011 - http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/07/16/dalai.lama.white.house/index.html
China pushes Mongolia to cut short Dalai Lama lecture, Nov 08 2011 - http://mg.co.za/article/2011-11-08-china-pushes-mongolia-to-cut-short-dalai-lama-lecture/

They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.
See above.

Yet US has the balls and hypocrisy to accuse China about its censorship practices, as do most US citizens here on Slashdot.
Stoping piracy is not censorship and you will lose this argument if you claim that it is. And cracking down on political and religious dissent is not the same thing as enforcing copyright. If you're going to make that comparison, you might as well compare one country's jailing of political dissidents with the US' jailing of criminals. There are political dissidents in Chinese jails for the crime of speaking out against the Chinese government.

US is much worse than China.
This should be interesting. By the way, as much as I dislike some of the things going on in the US, I do not like the way you're providing political cover for Chinese policies.

They try to force their views and laws globally.
When you say "views" and "laws" - those are very broad terms, as if all US views and laws must be enforced globally, which obviously is not the case. Let's talk specifics.

They install their own law enforcement agents inside other countries in the name of "providing training" to manipulate.
Not even clear on what you're talking about here.

They revoke IP addresses and domains used by non-US people.
As much as I'd like to agree with you, the problem stems from the fact that the internet is global. What this means is that, either the world enforces copyright or there will be some country which doesn't and everyone in the world will be able to side-step all the copyright laws. What we're talking about here is that one of the two extremes will win-out. It doesn't help at all that the PirateBay was operating for years, serving up pirated material to the whole world while sendi

Re:US, get out

[Bucky24]

The US IS policing the world right now. And I for one think that is an incredibly arrogant attitude to have. The world can police itself-that's what we have the UN for. And if they aren't doing a great job then the US, having quite a bit of global influence, should try to get the UN to a place where it can actually do some good, rather then trying to do the job ourselves. Instead we are pulling out of UN committees.

Re:US, get out

[Bucky24]

When did GP say Rodney King had to do with extradition?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I for one cannot wait to see the money-fight between George Soros and Rupert Murdoc for the presidental election following your proposal coming to pass.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Who really gives a shit what the EU says? A hoard of unelected bureaucrats whose only contribution to the world is mountains of laws and regulations. Maybe they should be concentrating on keeping the European economy from imploding and forcing a mass exodus of the EU countries who want to go back to using their own currency and trade regulations. The US has extradition treaties with a whole lot of countries and are hardly the only country taking advantage of these treaties. The US was the chief architect of the Internet and handing over control of the root domain servers to any other entity just isn't going to happen.There is nothing stopping any country from building their own Internet any time they want to. You might also want to re-evaluate your statement about China. They have built a firewall for the whole damn country and routinely block sites for political purposes without excuses or attempts of subterfuge. And finally it's time to realize that the US puts it's interests above all others just like all countries do and if you have a problem with that go find a set of balls and do something about it. The vast majority of wars the US has been in were caused by the incompetent Europeans. Besides starting WW1 and WW2 England, Spain, Germany, and France went around the world arbitrarily drawing up borders in the Baltics, Africa, South America, Southeast Asia, and especially the vast shit hole known as the middle east. The Israeli/ Palestinian conflict is one of their more impressive achievements. And when people complain about the US toppling the Iranian government in 1953 please remember that it was England who was fighting against Iran trying to nationalize their oil production assets. It was England who initiated a naval blockade to strangle Iranian exports and put pressure on the government. The US contribution was promising favorable trade treaties with the new government. And finally you are about to get a taste of what a world without the US will look like. The upcoming elections are going to usher in a policy of non-intervention not seen since before WW1. Of course we will continue to arm countries for profit and then sit back and watch them destroy each other on CNN for entertainment.

Re:US, get out

[Bucky24]

Why not just say PACs can't donate, period. Only citizens can donate, and set a limit on how much each can donate (calculated based on inflation). Then again corporations could just give all their employees money and say "you can keep half of this if you give the other half to this politician." Any ideas for how to close a loophole like that?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I stayed in China (visited Shanghai, Beijing, Chengdu, Xi'an, etc.) for a summer and must say that this is fairly accurate. The narrow-minded American media tries to paint a bad picture of other countries, but truthfully, I would rather live in China with all the recent events going down in the U.S.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I never realized America was so taken advantage of by the rest of the world.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

The US IS policing the world right now. And I for one think that is an incredibly arrogant attitude to have.

I agree but that's a different argument than the one GP was raising.

Re:US, get out

[DnaK420]

I am a sane one! We still exist.

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

Oh, come on. British influence was in the 19th century.

Britain was still trying to hang on to its colonies until the mid-60's. And this wasn't some benign protective impulse, it was motivated by greed, exploitation, and racism. Britain only gave those up it became unprofitable. The entire Iran disaster and the reason we are facing a nuclear threat from Iran is due to Britain and her economic interests, first begging America for help, and then disavowing any responsibility and leaving the mess to the Americans when it blew up. France's post-WWII colonial history is just as sordid.

It weren't the British who were funding the PDPA or arming the Mujahideen using billions of dollars.

That was part of the Cold War, and it was Europe that was responsible for the existence of the Cold War in the first place: European political ideologies, European wars, and ancient European enmities. And it was Europe's inability to defend itself against the Soviets that pushed the US into the role of having to deploy its military around the world to keep the USSR in check.

Re:US, get out

[whatthef*ck]

As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable

What part of Europe are you from? The part whose ass we kicked, or the part whose ass we saved?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Quoting Fox News? Seriously?

I know that your knee-jerk national pride needed to be defended but quoting Fox News did nothing to help your cause.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Great so the wealthiest will be the only ones getting their voices heard. Good idea. How about a donation limit? You know like limiting how much any entity can donate? You can make it an amount such that regular people can contribute without going broke and still be able to match donations by the wealthiest? I know campaigning costs money but how about a public fund and/or the media which already receives public assistance and funds be required during campaign season to carry the message of "all" those campaigning. Maybe we can make it so that instead of campaigns being about who raises the most money to reach the most people, them being about everyone having equal access to the information and basing their decisions on the message instead? Wouldn't it be cool if instead of being known for their advertising potential politicians were known for what they accomplish and what they plan to accomplish?

Yea I know I'm a dreamer - but I'd like to think I'm not the only one.

Re:US, get out

[bs0d3]

the beat castro http://activepolitic.com:82/News/2011-11-16f/Congress_Beats_Fidel_Castro.html

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

jajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajajaja

it's a means haha in english; the laughing sounds

Re:US, get out

[shentino]

Simple

Require full disclosure from each candidate where all of his campaign contributions come from.

Re:US, get out

[Warwick Allison]

So, act.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

> it is the closest we have to a multinational system that special interests (including the special interests of specific national agencies) cannot readily control.

What do you think WIPO are, and who do you think really controls them?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, bear in mind that "US government" is not equivalent to "US people".

Yeah, it's not like the US people voted for the US government or anything like that.

Re:US, get out

[euroq]

Regardless of the patriotic sentiments that are being thrown around here, saying that the "World Wide Web was invented by a person" is so overblown. There was a person who was at the right place in the right time, that's it. It was going to be made by someone, anyone, around that time period. It wasn't even that great of an implementation (though it was fine for what he was doing at the time, it had problems when it went widespread). And it was mostly putting together things that other people already did together (which, granted, is how probably 99% of inventions occur).

I don't think the man sucks, I'm not hating on him by any means, but the credit for how an average citizen of earth uses the internet today goes 98% to people other than the "guy who invented the world wide web".

Re:US, get out

[sjames]

Enough that I wonder if we couldn't solve most of our budget problems by scaling back to the level of other countries and then offering our rate card.

Re:US, get out

[drsmithy]

I propose the following:

A simpler version:

Only individuals can donate to campaigns, and monetarily only up to a limit of two weeks worth of whatever the current full time minimum wage is.

But I would also REVOKE all personal donation limits to campaigns, provided that they are from Citizens eligible to vote for those representatives.

So you wouldn't really change anything at all. The ridiculously wealthy would still be able to channel vast sums of money towards their preferred ideals, they'd just have to do it as an individual rather than as part of a group.

Re:US, get out

[euroq]

Do you really think that after WWII the European countries would not have fallen to communism one-by-one if the US had not had a presence in Europe?

I think that's too vague and bold of a statement to presume to be true. Sure, you could argue it. In fact, you could have a really long debate about it, and maybe come out with a strong probability of it being correct. But to really know the answer to that, to even get to that point of strong probability, you'd need to become an expert in many fields: history of the time, economics, military theory, etc. It's way too broad to make that statement as if it were a foregone conclusion.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you worry your pretty little head about it; the US is making sure it's getting back something in return. Just save yourself some trouble and stop whining.

Re:US, get out

[tenchikaibyaku]

Could you clarify what you mean by this, preferably with a reference?

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

Could we, at least, say the that the US presence in Europe after the war was a strong deterrent to communism? I've seen a lot of footage on WWII; enough to realize the devastation in France and other countries. They were left very weak economically and militarily.

My outrage was against CmdrPony's assertion: "The whole world would be much saner, happier and peaceful place without US." I hoping that he's in the minute minority.

Re:US, get out

[Jiro]

Cool, the New York Times can no longer write editorials supporting candidates or use any money to slant newspaper stories in favor of Democrats?

Ah, I forget. Media corporations are exempt.

Re:US, get out

[cavebison]

Even China ... They do what they have to do inside their country, but they have never tried to block or manipulate other countries to do the same.

I get your point, but China hardly "keeps to itself", and nobody would expect a major power to do so. You don't have to be open about manipulation.

Trade deals between countries have always been about getting what you want from that country in return for investment. Or indeed military exercises.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said.

As a European I despise the US government but I don't blame the citizens (although that stance ignores the many US citizens who approve and support their government).

Not that governments in Europe are perfect, but the problems with these governments are the problems of these countries. Whereas the US government's problems are the world's problems.

Re:US, get out

[rtb61]

Not really just look at the recent Australian example. Clearly Australian do not want a US military base especially based upon the current reputation of US military as being cowardly, dishonourable and lacking in integrity. Things like shooting into crowds of civilians when they feel threatened, killing people holding cameras and, dropping bombs by remote upon seemingly random groups of people.

To attempt to sneak 4,500 hundreds troops in, they had to call it a rotation not a posting and start with just 250 and slowly building up numbers to try to prevent significant protests. Their going to be in for a shock. There is no way Australians will allow foreign troops in Australian who are not subject to and bound by Australian law and under constant monitoring and supervision by Australian personal. Catch here is the US government always wants to cover it's own arse and categorically legislate the US military serving overseas are not subject to the laws of foreign governments.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I am not sure you are framing the problem correctly. I don't think the campaign donation laws actually have any serious issues (I am admittedly no expert). The campaign finance issue is on what counts as "political speech" and what limits there are on it. Giving $X million to a campaign to run a TV ad is functionally equivalent to paying for the TV ad yourself, but one involves a $X million donation and the other involves a $0 donation. As I understand it, that's what Citizens United was about: there was a law against the latter and it was ruled as violating the First Amendment.

I am not sure what the right solution is, but simply controlling who can directly give money to politicians is meaningless if non-political organizations can spend large amounts of money on furthering awareness of their political interests (naturally, with their own spin).

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

He doesn't sound like an agent, he is an agent.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Not true. The USA learned not to bully for extradition recently, with the case of Polanski.
Switzerland refused to extradite because the USA refused to complete the process and provide all the required paperwork. Instead, the USA asked the Swiss authorities to kindly ignore the law and extradite him without meeting all the prerequisites. Well the Swiss told the USA to fuck off because "We're the mighty USA do as we say" and "People have rights, except those accused of a crime" doesn't fly well over there.

So now the USA are just being careful not to get the finger from any country in the Assange case. Which is stupid, because the UK are in the USA's pocket as much as Sweden so they could get the UK to extradite directly to the US - after all, right now the UK is about to extradite a 16 year-old to the USA for running a website with LINKS to websites that featured illegal music/movies.

Re:US, get out

[Omestes]

Well, geez, who created the mess in Afghanistan in the first place?

Man, you're right, its not like the US funded the Taliban or Bin Laden or anything... Damn Europeans.

Yes, Europe was full of assholes. America is currently full of assholes, though.

I am an American, but some of the actions of my government, and some of the attitudes of our people bring me shame. I'd take the ghost of previous colonialism any day over American Exceptionalism.

Re:US, get out

[shutdown -p now]

I was in college during Tiananmen Square. Chinese students studying in America were persecuted for things they said on the internet here once they got back home.

That is applying Chinese law to Chinese nationals, same thing that any other country does (it's an unjust law, but it's not what we've been talking about).

In all fairness the US is essentially policing the world right now. It is not exactly an even comparison.

The world did not consent for U.S. to be its policeman. And, well, a person with a baton beating other people up is not necessarily a cop even if he claims he does.

Not that often. And generally the country that the people are being extradited from is glad for the US taking the case.

The country - i.e. the people of the country in question - is usually very bitter about it. Heck, just ask any Brit what he thinks about the extradition treaty his country has with U.S., and its practical application. The happy ones are the politicians of those countries, who are pretty old-fashioned whores - they get paid for sucking it up.

Re:US, get out

[shutdown -p now]

The intended use of .com, per ICANN, is "commercial entities worldwide".

And no-one wants to see the world in US. It is an important economic and political partner to other free countries. It would just be better if it spent more time minding its own business, and not trying to order other countries around.

Re:US, get out

[shutdown -p now]

I think we should let all of Europe speak German next time.

Did you mean to write "Russian" there? Or are you one of those confused people who think that U.S. bore the brunt of the war against Nazi Germany in WW2?

Re:US, get out

[shutdown -p now]

Voting is such an interesting thing. In DPRK, 99% vote for Kim. In Belarus, 80% vote for Lukashenko.

Yeah, yeah, U.S. is a democracy. But its voting system is fucked up. It's pretty silly to think that election results represent the opinion of the population on a particular matter in any meaningful way - at best, they show the the average position on a very vague liberal/conservative scale.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

But I would also REVOKE all personal donation limits to campaigns

Give "bonus" to CEO. CEO donates "bonus" minus 20% commission.

There, I just made all your propositions useless. Corruption finds a way.

Keep in mind that corporations have professionals that work full-time to find loopholes in laws and regulations. In fact, it was so trivial to find one in your suggestion, that you're probably one of them ;)

Re:US, get out

[Phoghat]

As a US citizen, Believe me when I say that most other US citizens will agree with you. ...well, most sane ones. The number of which is rapidly dropping.

The number is dropping at a logarithmic rate. I almost got into a flamewar on FB with a person almost 40 years my junior who thought that censorship, by the government was not only good, but necessary to protect its citizens from the dangers of...she didn't actually say what, and she spelled coup (as in coup d'etat) as "Coo", and she states in her info page that she is a graduate of a university, having a degree in education.

"Jesus wept".

Re:US, get out

[HopefulIntern]

Many northern european countries would want you, so long as you leave your warped idea of politics at the door ("you" being used collectively here).

Re:US, get out

[bryan1945]

"As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable."
You could have stopped right there, and everyone would agree. (Unless it was about us calling football soccer) No need to elaborate. US citizens are somewhat less than peachy about our government, too.

Re:US, get out

[hawkinspeter]

What case does he have to answer to in America? Did he break any US laws whilst in the USA?

Re:US, get out

[bryan1945]

Making another post under AC doesn't really help your credibility.

Re:US, get out

[bryan1945]

What's the Chinese equivalent for "Zdravstvuj Comrade"?

Re:US, get out

[blackchiney]

You must have slept through the parts where VP Joe Biden says they are investigating him to be charged under the Espionage Act. Not to mention the group of senators and one Sarah Palin making statements that he should be locked up in a US prison.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US citizen this country is not a country but has been an Empire. I agree the US should worry about its own and work with surrounding countries if the US has found a terrorist fueled domain..

Re:US, get out

[makomk]

Britain was still trying to hang on to its colonies until the mid-60's. And this wasn't some benign protective impulse, it was motivated by greed, exploitation, and racism.

Yeah, no kidding. Turns out we were doing such... interesting things as using castration as a way of torturing suspected rebels up until the 1960s.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

"Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture."

Ironic, isn't it? The people who are in their daily routine and only watch the news after hours probably don't know half of what is going on out there.

Re:US, get out

[Xest]

I've said it before, the organisation to do this already exists. It's the ITU:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Telecommunication_Union

It's got a history of being run by competent technocrats who have been very good at what they do, it already does a great job of managing satellite orbits, radio spectrums and so forth.

Too many people when they hear "UN" think of the security council, or in the best case, the general assembly, but this is all but a minor facet of what the UN does.

I'm not keen on all UN organisations, I think the WHO is largely incompetent, their handling of the swine flu situation amounted to little more than over the top fear mongering not based on solid science. The WTO is a proxy for the US to try and control global trade to it's advantage hence why it always ignores rulings against it whilst it pressures others to join and adhere to rulings in it's favour, and the world bank is less than stellar.

But the ITU, IMO, UPU, UNESCO, ICAO, IAEA, are very good at what they do, governed largely by experts in the field in question who actually know what the fuck they're on about rather than career politicians. WIPO was very good in making sure IP was fair until America screwed it for the WTO because WIPO wasn't working in America's favour (i.e. strong copyright and patents that we now have today). The International Criminal Court would be an excellent addition to the UN family of competent organisations, but struggles to get support because America wont sign up to it, presumably due to the fear of having the likes of George Bush held to account, and African nations are failing to honour their obligations to it claiming it's biased against Africa, seemingly missing all the European ex-Yugoslav and ex-Nazi war criminals it's dealt with, but then, if Africa stopped producing more war criminals than any other continent too then yes there'd probably be less focus on it also.

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

If you want to start looking at numbers then WW2 was basically Germany vs. Russia, everything else was a sideshow.

Re-writing history I see. Ever heard of D-Day? BTW, there were two theaters in WWII. Russia didn't do squat in the Pacific.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe soon you'll be able to clean up the messes that American/Soviet instigated European decolonization left around the world and in your backyard yourself again.

There, fixed that for you. And yes, the European taxpayer will clean up some the messes your government created around the world while your country's corporations happily ransack those countries natural resources. The soon you gtfo of those places the better. BTW, when is your country going to stop funding the only colony left in world? Because that mess is far bigger than all the others together.

Re:US, get out

[randyleepublic]

USA born and raised. Hating life, my friend! I was born in 1955, and the story we were told about Freedom, and WWII and the rest was so sweet. Soon as I got old enough to start thinking about stuff, it's been one nightmarish shit patch after another. It started with Kennedy getting shot, next Vietnam, and downhill from there... Fuck the fucking USA and all the morons who are not as disgusted as you and I!

That said, you might want to take a look at your own asshole government. Let's face it: My asshole government wouldn't be able to toss its weight around if your asshole government didn't let it. BTW, we all have central banks, and credit based monetary systems, so the differences are not really as deep as they may seem. We are just leading the way to extreme governmental/corporate tyranny. Where we go, you'll go too eventually.

The solution? Ban fractional reserve lending. Check my sig. It is the portal to the rest of the story.

Re:US, get out

[Patch86]

The whole world would be much saner, happier and peaceful place without US.

under Nazi rule!

The world would most likely have been under Nazi rule without Stalin's Soviet Union too, but that doesn't mean that the world isn't happier, saner and more peaceful without it.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually I've noticed that the number of people who disagree with US policies is increasing. Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture.

Ironic isn't it? The people out of work are those that have enough time to absorb all that's going on out there to get the big picture. People that are locked in their daily work routine only have the news and peers as sources of information.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

And it was Europe's inability to defend itself against the Soviets that pushed the US into the role of having to deploy its military around the world to keep the USSR in check.

You mean the USSR the US heavily armed and financed during WW2, thus enabling it to obtain state-of-the-art German technology like jet planes, ballistic missiles and assault rifles? You mean the Europe which cities your strategic bombers levelled (the British certainly helped here) in terror attacks against the civilian population, which in turn created a gigantic market for you to pour your American dollars and create jobs back home?

Europe wasn't responsible for the cold war. Cold war is an eufemism for the partaking of Europe as spoils of war between the US and the USSR.

Re:US, get out

[Hentes]

The Russians would still win WW2 without US help. But yeah, that would mean all of Europe except Britain would fall to communism. The problem is, someone will always rule the world, and if we have to choose between Russia, China and the USA, the Americans are still the best. There were plans about a paneuropean military alliance but I don't think that will happen in the foreseeable future.

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

I agree with you there. However, would the Soviet Union have survived without aid from the US.

A quote from that page:

Joseph Stalin, during the Tehran Conference in 1943, acknowledged publicly the importance of American efforts during a dinner at the conference: "Without American production the United Nations could never have won the war."[18]

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Man is awesome boxer haha. fuckfart haha.

Re:US, get out

[RockDoctor]

I am a sane one!

Well you would say that, wouldn't you?

Re:US, get out

[ciderbrew]

I always though America would be a great place to live if you have enough money. Wouldn't want to be poor there. I like my NHS.

Re:US, get out

[Sonic McTails]

Some of what you proposed was the law in the United States (specifically limits on what unions and corporations could donate). It was stricken down by the Supreme Court of the United States as a violation of free speech: NYTimes Article, no registration required

The case itself is Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, No. 08-205, if you would like to look it up.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

No - the OP was complaining because the US has it's nose stuck in damn orifice that any country has.

When that's the case, they should be apologising for getting their nose in the way of our fists.

How about growing some balls and keeping out of everyone else's damn business?

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you have a license for that reference? Nope? Hoohoo, fresh fish.

Getting to make sure criminal scum like you never see the light of day is why I took my job as a prison guard.

Re:US, get out

[jbolden]

That is applying Chinese law to Chinese nationals, same thing that any other country does (it's an unjust law, but it's not what we've been talking about).

I understand. GP claimed China didn't do this sort of thing.

The world did not consent for U.S. to be its policeman. And, well, a person with a baton beating other people up is not necessarily a cop even if he claims he does.

Two points:
a) Whether the world consented or not, is actually somewhat irrelevant to the point that the United States is in more wars than most countries because of its role.

b) It is not factually true that the world didn't consent. Generally the world urges US involvement and encourages it in these wars. The entire reason the United Nations was located in the USA was a European attempt to avoid having the US have the kind of indifference to world affairs it did between the world wars. The actions the US has taken generally have strong international support, Iraq exceptional in that the US took the action without strong international support. That is not the norm.

The country - i.e. the people of the country in question - is usually very bitter about it. Heck, just ask any Brit what he thinks about the extradition treaty his country has with U.S., and its practical application.

Foreign justice is unpopular in most countries with the population. If you don't want an extradition treaty with the USA don't have one. But the United States didn't force the UK to have one, your issue is with British politicians not US policy.

Re:US, get out

[Fuzzums]

True, but these are just two examples for 47 countries. We can say just about anything here (Europe) too. Not much difference.
Not so long ago, saying communism was good idea in the US... Well. You could say it of course, but you would lose your job to begin with.

For the rest: I disagree with your, in my eyes, simplistic view on the world, but I would never stop you from expressing it :)

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

You write like a true Neo-Nazi!

Re:US, get out

[drinkypoo]

As an EU citizen, I find US practices completely unacceptable.

As a US citizen, so do I. But I also find "EU citizen" to be a stupid thing to say, especially when complaining about US Censorship, since countries in the EU treat censorship differently (Italy, anyuone?) and many countries in the EU don't have free speech.

Re:US, get out

[glorybe]

I have difficulty in allowing the EU to remark about censorship when their member nations often have far greater censorship than the US. The fanatical laws about selling relics from WWII leap to mind. Or having news freezes until a suspect is arrested and the completion of his trial, or the harsh notions of what constitutes slander don't indicate free speech doing well in Europe at all.

Re:US, get out

[Xest]

I suggest you look at the history of WIPO, historically it was voting against poor IP terms and long copyright because the African nations couldn't afford to compete or provide drugs to cure illnesses amongst their people under these terms.

The US didn't like the democratic nature of WIPO so it started the WTO under which it designated itself and friendly economies far more control whilst leaving none for smaller, poorer nations. As such WIPO has been forced into irrelevance such that it either tows the US line, or faces extinction.

WIPO was actually a brilliant organisation until the US used subversive tactics to force it away from being a democratic representation of the world's interests in terms of IP and Copyrights.

Re:US, get out

[PlatyPaul]

"All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer." - Robert Owen (to William Allen)

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

Man, you're right, its not like the US funded the Taliban or Bin Laden or anything... Damn Europeans.

Yes, it's indeed not like that.

Carter and Reagan did support the Mujahideen because he hoped that they would fight against communism, and it achieved its narrow goals but ended up creating new problems. Supporting conservative religious factions in Germany had managed to pacify the country after WWII, it had been a reasonable thing to try, but it obviously doesn't work well with Islam.

I'd take the ghost of previous colonialism any day over American Exceptionalism.

So you like theft on a global scale, genocide and slavery then? Because that's what European colonialism was. "American Exceptionalism", on the other hand, is just a fact: after Europe self-destructed in the 20th century, the US ended up being the only superpower. I'd like that "exceptionalism" to end too: the sooner Europe pays for its on defense and polices its own backyard, the better. But for 70 years, Europeans keep asking the US to fix their messes for them, and the US can't refuse, because not intervening is even worse than intervening.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the US has the balls to do this, it's that our fucking representatives have the fucking audacity to even think that they should be able to censor it's citizens let alone the whole god damn world. As i US citizen i openly invite every country in the world to invade the US. Clearly we've reached a point in our nations existence where "Freedom of Speech" no longer apply and we feel that we own the whole worlds internet. I probably shouldn't even post this, but fuck it revolution is right around the corner.

Re:US, get out

[cavreader]

No one person is responsible for the Internet however DARPA did do the initial legwork in getting the Internet started and US corporations picked up the ball and ran with it. The rest of the world just tapped into the existing Internet and contributed to the international growth of the Internet. Lets also recognize the fact the US is the home of IBM, Sun, MS, Apple, Intel, HP, Motorola, CISCO, Google, and a whole lot of other companies that are overwhelmingly responsible for today's computer technology. What the hell has Europe ponied up besides possibly SAP or Siemens? China contributes cheap labor to mass produce components designed elsewhere while at the same time "borrowing" the technology to create their own implementations without all of the pesky R&D headaches and expenses. Of course all of the US corporations are comprised of not only US citizens but also people from all over the world but the foreign imports came to a country where their skills were in demand.
If anyone has a problem with the US\ICANN control of the root servers they are free to create their own Internet anytime they want. It will be a cold day in hell before any of ICANN's responsibilities are handed over to that band of idiots collectively known as the UN.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

I have been reading /. on and off for what .... close to 15 years and this is the most factually inaccurate, xenophobic and misleading post that I have read in a long while and given that factually inaccurate posts are not exactly lacking on the site, it deserves some sort of kudos.

Just out of curiosity would the author be so nice as to tell me how old he is?

  I am not trying to be rude but I am surprised to see someone that can actually sting together a coherent sentence but cannot distinguish between individuals and their actions, and subgroups, groups, supra-groups and so on, the structural differences between them, or the actions of those groups collectively and individually, you usually attribute such cognitive and pattern matching failings to either a total lack of education and access to information, which in this case is clearly not the what is going on, or to Soviet/Nazi Germany/Israel/China/North Korea/Saudi/The Daily Mail class propaganda machinery that eradicates the subdivisions amongst "enemies" to help simplify propaganda messages. Why bother with blaming governments or whatnot if you can cherry pick any individual action and apply the responsibility for that action to any group/country/political union/religious or ethnic group you see fit to blame.

Has the Foxification of news and information sources really gone so far in Northern America that there is no longer even a cognitive awareness of the outside world except as examples of evildoing and as modern day equivalents of Sodom and Gomorrah?

If that is the case I can see a new cold war brewing slowly, with the USA taking place of the old Soviet Union.

Re:US, get out

[webheaded]

Yeah, I've seen lots of great proposals like this over and over again by people here, Reddit, etc but none of it matters because those pieces of crap in Congress are never going to vote themselves into limiting the money train. I honestly think it would take open revolt for that to happen. I mean honestly...how are we going to get them to do this? How? I think that's the only reason most of those assholes are even in government in the first place.

Re:US, get out

[cavreader]

Russia started off as an allie of Germany. It wasn't until after Hitler invaded their country that Stalin had a change of heart. The US supplied them with the materials and support they needed to bring their military up to something capable of taking on Germany. Without that initial support Germany would have goosed stepped into Moscow waving the Nazi flag. The US also supplied England which kept them from being totally overrun in spite of very specific US laws prohibiting such efforts. FDR basically ignored the wishes of Congress and started initiating programs to make sure England survived and that the US would be able to create and mobilize the military for the fight he knew was coming. If the US had not emerged from WW2 victoriously and FDR had still been alive he would have been impeached. Hell, there were attempts to start the impeachment process even before the US officially entered the war. If the US had not entered the war Germany would not have been forced to divide their resources and fight on 2 fronts.
It was the western Europeans who created the conditions for WW2 by their idiotic demands and sanctions placed on Germany after WW1. It was England who negotiated away territory to Germany and ignored mutual defense treaties with European countries such as Poland and Belgium that allowed Germany to start invading it's neighboring countries. France lost control of their country not because they were cowards or unwilling to fight, they lost because of the fierce political infighting between the Socialists, Fascists, Progressives, Legislaturists, Democratic, and Monarchy political parties. They created a politically fragmented country unable to cooperate in the defense of their own country. France would have most likely lost to Germany even if their military was supported by a united government but I doubt Hitler would have been visiting the Eiffel Tower like a tourist.
Why should the US have taken on the brunt of actions caused by others? Why should US soldiers and civilian seaman merchants have died to defend countries who showed nothing but disdain for the US? If the Europeans were able to ignore the atrocities committed by Hitler why couldn't the US have did the same? The US did not win the war single handily but they did create the conditions which led to that victory and those efforts do not deserve to be considered inconsequential or meaningless.

Re:US, get out

[vawwyakr]

The problem is I only really get two choices. Neither choice is particularly good on real Government restriction of power and intrusion. I can vote third party but the majority do not. The group right now calling for weaker government are really only talking about weaker in certain ways and have no problem with the government enforcing other laws they decide are acceptable. So I'm screwed most elections.

Re:US, get out

[vawwyakr]

Good ideas on the face but the problem is that still gives people with lots of money far more sway than the average person. The purpose of PACs and Unions is to allow people to group together and have more sway than they would individually and be heard. What you're proposing essentially still leaves the average citizen without any power and just makes the high income earners tremendously more powerful.

Re:US, get out

[vawwyakr]

I like this idea much better, that's real campaign reform and a great way to turn down the river of money currently flowing into politics. There would still need to be more enforcement and more laws. Because people with money would find other ways to influence politics...."oh your daughter needs college tuition well lets see if I can setup a foundation and see if that new foundation needs someone to give a free ride to".

Re:US, get out

[chrb]

The idea of putting the men who vote for war in the trenches is not a new one. Several historical figures have proposed that armies should be drawn in a non-biased way from the population for precisely this reason. If I remember correctly, it was one of the principles behind the Swiss militia system. Major General Smedley Butler - one of the most popular military figures in history - made several similar proposals:

1 Making war unprofitable Butler suggests that the owners of capital should be "conscripted" before soldiers are: "It can be smashed effectively only by taking the profit out of war. The only way to smash this racket is to conscript capital and industry and labour before the nation's manhood can be conscripted.Let the officers and the directors and the high-powered executives of our armament factories and our steel companies and our munitions makers and our ship-builders and our airplane builders and the manufacturers of all other things that provide profit in war time as well as the bankers and the speculators, be conscripted — to get $30 a month, the same wage as the lads in the trenches get"

2 Acts of war to be decided by those who fight it He also suggests a limited plebiscite to determine if the war is to be fought, and the voters eligible would be those who risk death on the front lines.

3 Limitation of militaries to self defence For the United States, Butler recommends that the navy be limited, by law, to within 200 miles of the coastline, and the army restricted to the territorial limits of the country, ensuring that war, if fought, can never be one of aggression.

"Nothing will end war unless the people themselves refuse to go to war. - Albert Einstein"

"No war by any nation in any age has ever been declared by the people. - Eugene Deb"

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. - Plato"

Re:US, get out

[chrb]

I suspect he is referring to Verbotsgesetz 1947 and similar laws that the Allied administrations passed during the occupation period following WWII as part of the Allied denazification program.

Re:US, get out

[jez9999]

Fine, but I'd like to see voting percentages for these clowns down to sub-10%, as well. That's what really shows that the citizens are discontented with the system. Voters need to say, "these clowns suck, and we're abstaining/throwing our vote away for a third party, because it's better than voting for these clowns."

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Stoping piracy is not censorship and you will lose this argument if you claim that it is

The anti-piracy laws are too loosely defined and require no real evidence for action to be taken. They can and will be used for censorship.

Re:US, get out

[Omestes]

Supporting conservative religious factions in Germany had managed to pacify the country after WWII, it had been a reasonable thing to try, but it obviously doesn't work well with Islam.

Or with South Americans, it seems. Actually it never really worked. Sure, short terms goals are very important, but that all becomes rather stupid when it blows up in your (literally) face a generation down the line. Our bullshit in South America was worse, since we subverted democratically elected governments to install tyrants, just so they'd play better with American corporations (oh, and we must stop those damn leftists, at any cost!). All of this blew up in our faces to, nicely.

I'm not saying that we should never intervene, isolationism is stupid. But, we should realize that our "the ends always justify the means, no matter how horrible they may be" ideology is dubious, being that the ends are rarely, if ever, how we want them, and the means are generally always self-defeating. It also ignores the fact the all of the people trampled by American means are human beings.

So you like theft on a global scale, genocide and slavery then?

Notice I said the word "ghost", this doesn't mean I support any present attempts at colonialism, but I'd rather have idiocy in the past than idiocy in the present. You forget that America also has theft on a global scale, genocide, and slavery in our past. Actually, probably every country that exists has at least one or two of these in their history. The fact is we're still acting like assholes. They acted like assholes. Tense is important.

"American Exceptionalism", on the other hand, is just a fact...

By what objective metric? Education? Health? Equality? Violence? Freedoms? All we have that is exceptional is a grotesquely large parasitical military, and an intelligence apparatus that would turn the KGB green with envy. On everything that matters we are about as far from exceptional as possible.

Europeans keep asking the US to fix their messes for them, and the US can't refuse, because not intervening is even worse than intervening.

There are some things we should intervene on. Libya is a good example, we did well, there is no ethical problem, and the world is a better place for our help. Iraq being the counter-example, and an example of the US. doing exactly what you decry Europe for doing, we dragged a NATO into a big stupid conflict that benefited nobody, not even the US. Our intervention in the Balkans were also a good thing, since, well... I can't argue against stopping a genocide. But then again I'm looking at all this from a philosophical, ethical, and humanist point of view, and not some strange, inhuman, political view.

I do agree, Europe needs a military. If I remember right, though, we weren't very keen on that idea a couple years ago. Hell, the UN needs a damn military wing.

Re:US, get out

[MBGMorden]

Might be a workable idea, but here's the problem: the only people who can enact such reform are the politicians. It's a chicken and the egg problem. You can't fix the system to remove corruption when the existing corrupt people are the only ones who can fix it.

I think we're on the verge of something massive happening within the next 10-15 years. The Occupy people are out there doing their thing - the Tea Party people have opposite ideas but are out in numbers too. Basically, huge segments of the population are getting fed up with the status quo. That dissatisfaction will continue to grow. Not sure if it'll grow into an all out revolution, but I'd expect a lot of mass rioting to ramp up in the coming years.

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

Sure, short terms goals are very important, but that all becomes rather stupid when it blows up in your (literally) face a generation down the line

Dealing with the occasional terrorist attack is peanuts compared to world domination by the USSR.

But, we should realize that our "the ends always justify the means, no matter how horrible they may be" ideology is dubious,

Well, fortunately that is not US philosophy.

"American Exceptionalism", on the other hand, is just a fact... By what objective metric?

The size of our military, the size of our economy, the importance of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and the effectiveness of our intelligence services.

There are some things we should intervene on. Libya is a good example, we did well, there is no ethical problem, and the world is a better place for our help. Iraq being the counter-example, and an example of the US.

Hindsight is 20/20. Iraq didn't work, Libya did, so you don't like the former and do like the latter.

I do agree, Europe needs a military. If I remember right, though, we weren't very keen on that idea a couple years ago.

Of course they weren't, because it's so much easier to let the US fight wars for Europe, take the moral high ground, and spend the money on benefits and infrastructure.

Hell, the UN needs a damn military wing.

The UN is a diplomatic organization where even the most evil regimes can talk to each other to avoid disaster. It is not a democratic body and it certainly should not control a military.

Re:US, get out

[phantomfive]

You realize few of these would make any difference, right? There's already so much regulation limiting PACs that it's hard to bribe politicians with them. Democrats and Republicans have been working to get you focused on those things so they don't lose the real gravy train that puts money in their private pockets (remember, most campaign finance reform is bi-partisan, like McCain-Feingold).

They get their real money from IPO deals given directly to them (it's not campaign finance, so it's legal).
They get it from 'knowing' which land will be valuable next (like Rick Perry who just happened to buy land right before Dell tried to buy it, making a nice profit).
They use insider information they get as government officials to make insider stock trades. Congress members are allowed to make trades with insider information.

This stuff CAN be made illegal, but it's hard to find out about because congress keeps it secret. Congress is free to deny FOIA requests. That means you'll have more success requesting documents about CIA torture than about your congressperson's insider trading deals.

As long as rich people can find ways to give money directly to the candidates, campaign finance limits won't matter. As long as we don't have transparency in government, they will find ways to give money. Government transparency. It's what matters.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

Note, you can remove the the Citizen and replace it with individual, since there are many elections where Citizenship isn't required since many tax payers aren't citizens and just lawfully reside here.

My suggestion would be to simply amend the constitution such that:
1) No organization may be granted any privilege or exception from any law that is not also granted to individual with the sole exception being organizations that are dictated by law and which are headed by elected officials or headed by officials appointed by elected officials. ( ie, law enforcement and Courts )

2) No individual shall be subject to a tax or fee which is not also applied to organizations. Further, any such fee or tax that is based on income may exclude some base amount, but shall not be limited such that lower income individuals may a disproportionate amount.

##
## Make companies and corporations weaker than the individuals and everything else will fix.
##

Re:US, get out

[BMOC]

As far as overall percentage of the voting-age population is concerned, it can be that low. Turnout for presidential elections can only be about 30% of the voting-age population, and during the Gore/Bush election those numbers were evenly split. So, order-of-magnitude, yeah.

Re:US, get out

[Omestes]

Well, fortunately that is not US philosophy.

Yes, we obviously care a ton about the (non-American) human consequences of our global actions, which are generally only orchestrated for our own gain. Hence funding terrorists, despots, dictators, and attempting to overthrow popular regimes.

The size of our military, the size of our economy, the importance of the dollar as a global reserve currency, and the effectiveness of our intelligence services.

I notice you didn't cite anything that is actually important to real people, like health and education. Yes, our military is ridiculously massive, but sadly it eats resources that are better spent on real people. I'd rather have the best health and education systems in the world, and a merely average military.

Hindsight is 20/20. Iraq didn't work, Libya did, so you don't like the former and do like the latter.

Screw hindsight, Iraq served no purpose, and we were in Libya at the behest of Libyans and the international community. Many people knew Iraq was a stupid and dangerous venture before it started, but they were ignored.

Of course they weren't, because it's so much easier to let the US fight wars for Europe, take the moral high ground, and spend the money on benefits and infrastructure.

Mind your pronouns. I said "we", as in "Americans". Also the EU has an issue, since they aren't a single country but a collective trying to balance the collective good against each individual countries sovereignty. Each member country has a different idea of what the EU should be. So organizing a European military (a better Eurocorps) is a bit like herding autistic cats. Though the sad fact of the matter is that no one can be considered to be "carrying their own weight" with the US, since our military is obscenely large, and would be even if we were sane, since we are a rather large country compared to the EU much less any individual country within it.

The UN is a diplomatic organization where even the most evil regimes can talk to each other to avoid disaster. It is not a democratic body and it certainly should not control a military.

I don't see why not, then its resolutions would have teeth. If i was the dictator of the world for a day, one of the things I would do is give the UN an actual military force (or at least enhance its ability to use the forces of member countries), and take away all the permanent veto countries veto, and just have it rotate among nations like everything else in the UN.

I also see what you did there... Last I checked most of the worlds countries were in the UN, and most of them used it as a way of talking to each other from time to time. Thus by your logic most of the world is ran by an evil regime. Well, all of them but the US, who is too good for international opinion or law, who sometimes tries its hardest to act like an evil regime (if China does something it is evil, if the US does the same thing it is saintly).

Re:US, get out

[shutdown -p now]

Russia started off as an allie of Germany.

USSR wasn't an ally of Germany in a sense that it didn't fight against all other countries that Germany did at a time (UK, France etc). The only tactical alliance was during the partition of Poland. And even then - while RKKA and Wermacht officers were smiling to each other and shaking hands, they knew they'd be lobbing shells at each other real soon after - reading any book from that period will tell you that war (specifically against Germany) was "in the air" throughout 1939 and 1940 amongst Soviet population. They just didn't know when, and generally assumed it'd be later than when it actually happened.

The US supplied them with the materials and support they needed to bring their military up to something capable of taking on Germany. Without that initial support Germany would have goosed stepped into Moscow waving the Nazi flag.

You're very, very wrong here. The whole reason why USSR has weathered the initial storm was because its own industry was much more capable than German one, even after the initial significant losses of territory. U.S. material and equipment aid did help in a sense that it alleviated some shortages, and probably made the war go for a year or so shorter than it otherwise would have; however, none of that stuff was in areas that were critical for the action, and that would cause the Soviet front to collapse if no help was provided. It certainly didn't do much up until the point of the Battle of Moscow in 1941 - that was won by Soviets largely because Germans didn't properly prepare for a winter campaign (the usual mistake).

. If the US had not entered the war Germany would not have been forced to divide their resources and fight on 2 fronts.

The second front in Europe (with US participation) was re-opened in mid-1944. That's 1.5 years after Germans had an epic fail at Stalingrad, and a year after another one at Kursk - the latter in particular making it clear that the tide of war is turned. Of course, in reality all you need to do is look at the industrial output of Germany vs USSR at this point - the former was clearly doomed.

You can also look at German losses on Eastern Front vs Western Front to compare their importance (it's about 5x more in the East).

It was the western Europeans who created the conditions for WW2 by their idiotic demands and sanctions placed on Germany after WW1. It was England who negotiated away territory to Germany and ignored mutual defense treaties with European countries such as Poland and Belgium that allowed Germany to start invading it's neighboring countries.

UK was hoping to dodge the bullet, but they weren't the only ones. E.g. Poland happily took part in the partition of Czechoslovakia. The problem was that pretty much everyone was quite eager to have a slice of the pie, just so long as it wasn't their pie.

The US did not win the war single handily but they did create the conditions which led to that victory and those efforts do not deserve to be considered inconsequential or meaningless.

The U.S. did help to win the war, no-one is claiming otherwise. Furthermore, if you look at all Axis countries and not just European ones, U.S. is second in terms of its contribution to the war, after the USSR. What I objected to is your claims that U.S. was the country that won the war (or single-handedly enabled other countries to win it), and that, if not for it, Europe would have been German.

What, effectively, won the war in Europe was Stalin's brutal industrialization campaign that cost many lives in the preceding decade, but which let USSR pump out rifles and tanks and planes at extreme rate even after being decimated in the initial German invasion. And the determination of Soviets to fight to an end (rat

Re:US, get out

[hazah]

They can and should be classified the same as any corporation.

Re:US, get out

[Coren22]

Wow, so what happened to all the Democrats that are pushing this crap through? They must genuinely be the idiocratic.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

"US can keep their .us TLD, which is the actual TLD given to United States."

This is factually incorrect. The US originated both the domain name system as a whole, and the .com domain, and eventually opened .com up to international organizations.

Re:US, get out

[Coren22]

And you are absolutely right that Libya had nothing to do with NATO or NATO objectives, but it was the Europeans that called for the US to help with it. The US response to Europe should have been "fix your own damned problems". Unfortunately, if the US stops being involved, Europe will spiral down the economic or totalitarian drain again, and that's bad for the US as well.

Here is your citation for that:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Libyan_civil_war#Foreign_military_intervention

The US was asked to help in Libya, even though we have no reason to be there. It was a NATO operation, but shouldn't have been.

Re:US, get out

[Bob9113]

Browsing through the discussion, saw your sig, started to read the post. Saw this line:

We'd have to move away from the spanning tree topology currently popular on the Internet (because it's cheap) and move to as close to a full mesh topology

Thought to myself, holy crap -- this guy really knows his shit. That's why I started looking into the mesh networks they've building with bailing wire and twine in Africa. So I look up at the header, and see you've got me by a whole order of magnitude in the account number game. Perhaps it is not you who have reached the same conclusions as I, but the other way around.

I don't seriously expect ... but I can honestly think of no other solution since everything else has been tried and been shown to be a disaster.

Dammit. You reached the same conclusion I did there, as well.

But here's what I've been thinking lately -- the world is an amazing self-correcting machine. Its corrections are often quite painful processes, but they inherently must happen. Why? Because as the kleptarchs and oligarchs gain power they cannot resist leveraging that power to steal more. It is central to their fundamental nature. It is so canonical that it is a recurring theme in civil revolt literature. Here is just one example; "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."

So what is our role? How do we help restore the vision embodied in no small list of documents from The Republic to The Constitution and beyond?

Here's what I see happening: The kinds of people who are the sort to get into the tussle side of the coming correction are starting to recognize the problem. That's not me, I'm not that guy. But when I see one of those kinds of people "get it" the reaction is pretty common: "Holy Crap! Now what do I do?"

That, I think, is where we come in. They are not, as a rule, the sort of people who spend a lot of time administering networks. We are. We are the information tool makers. We are the ones who know how to run darknets on the existing infrastructure, and have the ability to build the mesh networks that should replace it. We are the ones who understand why that is the only solution, and we are the ones who the common man will ask for information when he becomes active in solving the problem. When those more action-oriented people need the modern equivalent of muskets, we are the ones to whom they will turn. It happened on a large scale several times during the Arab Spring, and happened at least once on a small scale at Occupy San Francisco with a bicycle-dynamo powered network hub.

Geez -- I feel like I have to steal a glance over shoulder now, get skittish, and say, "I've already said too much."

Re:US, get out

[Coren22]

What war crimes? I have heard of no war crimes...

Re:US, get out

[Coren22]

If you don't want the US policing the world, ask your leaders to stop asking them to through the UN. The UN asked us to be involved in Libya.

Re:US, get out

[TemporalBeing]

Actually I've noticed that the number of people who disagree with US policies is increasing. Slowly, yes, but people who are out of work and have very little to do but actually pay attention to what is going on seem to be getting the picture.

Well, I'd gander that it's more like 99% of the US doesn't agree with quite a few of the US policies; but feel they can't do anything about them with the amount of play that the various PACs, Super PACs, and Corporations do to get Congress to do their bidding; personally, I'd limit those groups to the Senate and reserve the House of Representatives for the people - e.g. no money from anyone but their constituents for elections (and directly at that), etc.

Re:US, get out

[sgt scrub]

There is more than one? Gota link? The party has an issue with posers. The more that are pointed out the faster they can be removed.

Re:US, get out

[cyber-vandal]

As much as all the British blood that was shed, bloodshed that is insultingly belittled every time you or one of your compatriots says something like "if it wasn't for us y'all be speaking German right now" as if the Europeans just sat around doing nothing while the brave Americans did all the fighting. So if you don't like what I say tell your compatriots that it's not right to insult my ancestors who died to defeat fascism every bit as bravely as the US troops did.

Re:US, get out

[cyber-vandal]

I'm not blaming anyone I'm simply responding to a post that claims that the UK needs the US to defend it. That isn't the case.

Re:US, get out

[cyber-vandal]

Libya isn't in Europe you retard. And given that British and French pilots did a lot of the work I'm not quite sure what your point is.

Re:US, get out

[mcgrew]

I agree completely, and have come up with similar.

1. You can only contribute to candidates you're eligible to vote for (making your #3 and #4 unnecessary, and removing a felon's right to contribute in most states)
2. It would be a felony to contribute to more than one candidate in any given race, preventing the rich from giving ten grand to each candidate's campaign coffers, that's just bribery.
3. PACs should be illegal

I wouldnt allow any entity that couoldn't vote to campaign in any way. When did money become speech?

Even better would be publicly funded elections.

Re:US, get out

[StikyPad]

I would also REVOKE all personal donation limits to campaigns

That's a terrible idea. Individual contribution limits prevent those with the most money from having the most influence. Yes, more in theory than in practice, but making it easier for wealthy contributors to wield influence doesn't solve anything.

Re:US, get out

[mcgrew]

Source: Black Sabbath, War Pigs

Better: Pink Floyd

Forward! He cried from thr rear, and the front rank died. The general sat, and the lines on the map moved from side to side.

"Out of the way! It's a busy day, I've got things on my mind." For want of the price of tea and a slice the old man died.

"Havent you heard, it's a battle of words!" the poster berer cried. "Listen, son," said the man with the gun, "there's room for you inside."

Re:US, get out

[mcgrew]

Hey, our two party system is twice as good as the Soviets' one party system! Look how well that served them.

Re:US, get out

[Coren22]

Politicians, whether D or R, are all taking their queues from Idiocracy. They all are doing these abysmally stupid things.

I would start here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_Online_Piracy_Act

as it states, it was brought up as a bipartisan movement. In case you don't know what that means, it means both D and R were in on it.

Re:US, get out

[mcgrew]

I know everyone likes to get stuff for free, but pirates don't have a sustainable economic model for the creation of digital media - except for the cheapest kinds, like TV shows (paid for by commercials) and YouTube videos. I hate to see what the world will become if piracy were the norm.

Personaly, I don't think digits should be considered "affixed in a tangible form" unless theyre sold in some medium. Im completely against the digital delivery of everything, because you no longer have resale rights. "Digital media" should be advertising for real, tangible CDs, books, and movies. I think counterfeit books and CDs should be illegal (I'm not against copyright itself), but giving away home made copies should not be. The "it's digital so the copy is perfect" is a fallacy; a cassette you recorded from an LP sounded every bit as good as an MP3 and was perfectly legal (Audio Home Recording Act of 1978 iinm).

Also, the present extremely long copyright periods harm creators and are a disincentive to creation of new works. Why should the record company hire talented people when they can still make a lot more money selling forty year old music?

If you want to sell me an e-book, sell it on a thumb drive or CD so I can resell the damned thing. Add value to the physical object. Don't criminalize an activity that millions upon millions of people are engaged in.

The stated harm of piracy has never been demonstrated.

Stoping piracy is not censorship

True, but SOPA is far more than simply "stopping piracy". It would indeed lead to censorship.

Murder will get you about 20 years.

In 1981 I had a friend who drove a cab for a living. He was shot in theheart by a robber who didn't believe him when he said he didn't have any money (he'd just started his shift). The shooter went to prison for TWO YEARS. On the other hand, another friend's brother spent five years in a Federal pen for loaning money to a drug dealer; "conspiracy to deliver drugs". Our laws and jail terms are indeed screwed; some non-violent crimes will get you incarcerated loger than if you kill someone.

I also have a hard time believing that Thailands super-hardline laws against drugs are a result of US pressure.

Not me; I was there, in the USAF in 1974. The only drugs that were illegal were heroin, marijuana, cocaine and LSD. AFAICT there was no LSD or cocaine, but heroin and killer bud were everywhere. I only ever heard of one person being imprisoned for drugs, and that was a guy in my outfit. From what I heard, you could bribe your way out of prison, but every bribe his wife sent was topped by a bigger US government bribe.

I did see the Thai police shoot a man in the head; I was in his bhat bus, flashing blue lights came up, he slammed on the brakes and ran, and they put an M-16 round in his skull (there was a war on, he was likely a communist).

I also saw a wall of marijuana bricks thirty feet long, three feet thick, and eight feet tall, right out in the open in a residential neighborhood. Of course there was a guy with a .45 guarding it. But if the Thai government was so anti-drug, that wall would have been safely hidden.

Oh, and any other kind of drug you wanted, from pennicillin to qualludes to amphetamines, were for sale at pharmacies, no prescription needed.

I completely agree with the rest of your points.

Re:US, get out

[Anonymous Coward]

A second US citizen agreeing with you.

Re:US, get out

[t2t10]

Yes, we obviously care a ton about the (non-American) human consequences of our global actions, which are generally only orchestrated for our own gain. Hence funding terrorists, despots, dictators, and attempting to overthrow popular regimes.

There is a lot of middle ground between "the end justifies the means" and "we care a ton about the non-American human consequences", and the US is in that middle ground; it has to be.

I notice you didn't cite anything that is actually important to real people, like health and education.

You asked what made the US exceptional and why the US is doing all these things when nobody else is doing them and I gave you the answer: because the US actually can do them.

Though the sad fact of the matter is that no one can be considered to be "carrying their own weight" with the US, since our military is obscenely large, and would be even if we were sane, since we are a rather large country compared to the EU much less any individual country within it.

The EU has 500 million citizens and a GDP of 16 trillion dollars; the US has 315 million citizens and a GDP of 14 trillion dollars. Right now, the US is spending 4.7% of its GDP on the military, European NATO members below 2%. The US spending is so high because European spending is so low. The US could unilaterally reduce its spending, but both the US and Europe consider that risky.

So organizing a European military (a better Eurocorps) is a bit like herding autistic cats.

So you're saying that because Europe is still a bunch of squabbling, xenophobic nation states who can't take care of their own defense and hate the US no matter what the US does, the US should do... well, what exactly?

I don't see why not, then [UN] resolutions would have teeth. If i was the dictator of the world for a day, one of the things I would do is give the UN an actual military force ... I also see what you did there... Last I checked most of the worlds countries were in the UN, and most of them used it as a way of talking to each other from time to time. Thus by your logic most of the world is ran by an evil regime.

The majority of nations in the world are either totalitarian, or at least significantly non-democratic.

Well, all of them but the US, who is too good for international opinion or law, who sometimes tries its hardest to act like an evil regime (if China does something it is evil, if the US does the same thing it is saintly).

The US was widely hated throughout Europe for most of the 19th and 20th century, with only a brief interruption after WWII. You can't make these people happy, and there is no point in trying.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

Why? I would consider campaign donations a form of 1st Amendment Speech. But First Amendment Speech is protected for CITIZENS and not other legal constructs like Corporations, Unions, and PACs.

Some people consider me "right wing" but that is because I'm for unrestricted LIBERTY. Other people consider me "left wing" for the same reason. I'm for PERSONAL Liberty, not into "group politics" of any sort, as Liberty is always pushed aside for group objectives.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

Impossible. Obama would never be able to explain where all the INTERNET donations came from.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

So you wouldn't really change anything at all.

Actually if you read all the restrictions, you'd realize that the "rich" couldn't buy any politician they couldn't vote for. That makes is much more restrictive. Additionally if you place restrictions on Citizens donating to campaigns, I would consider that a violation of first amendment rights. You are restricting Liberty because you don't like rich people. Interesting value system you have.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

You'd be surprised, but the OWS people have a lot in common with the TP people. Bailouts for Big Corps, banks and things of that sort. The big difference is that the TP people tend to believe Government is the problem and the OWSers believe it is the solution.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

I wish I was standing in front of the US Supreme Court where I could have made the case for LIBERTY being for Individuals and Citizens and not artificial legal constructs such as PACs, Corporations and Unions. Additionally, I'm not restricting, in ANY manner, their "speech" other than just saying they have to manage their own campaigns.

Hell, if we have to, lets make a Constitutional Amendment that says "Liberty is for individuals and Citizens". :-D
 

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

#3 and #4 are for CLARITY. I realize they are superfluous otherwise.

Re:US, get out

[Archangel Michael]

So, what you're saying is that you oppose wealthy people expressing their 1st Amendment rights. How about we also restrict those that don't have jobs and are on welfare from donating to campaigns while we are restricting people's Liberties?

Re:US, get out

[Anguirel]

An editorial, or even blatant slanted articles, would be the equivalent of any corporation running their own campaign as it is not directly associated with the candidate or from that candidate, but clearly comes from the corporation itself. A NYT editorial is exactly what the NYT should be allowed to do. A corporation donating a few million dollars (allowing the candidate to make his or her own ads) is what is being proposed should be stopped.

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

as if the Europeans just sat around doing nothing while the brave Americans did all the fighting.

I didn't say that and you know it. As a matter of fact, I don't know anyone that thinks that. Perhaps you should improve you reading skills since nowhere, in any of my posts, have I disrespected any of the WWII participants. If you'll go back and read what I originally responded to, you'll find t2t10 said:

You could also mention WW2 but we paid you back for that in 2006

You can repay money and material but you can't repay lives. I don't know about you but I'll forever be thankful for all the lives given to purchase my freedom.

Now, go twist someone else's words.

Re:US, get out

[drsmithy]

Actually if you read all the restrictions, you'd realize that the "rich" couldn't buy any politician they couldn't vote for.

Hardly a significant restriction. The rich can trivially relocate to whichever locality they want to influence.

Additionally if you place restrictions on Citizens donating to campaigns, I would consider that a violation of first amendment rights.

Money is not speech. Your premise is broken.

If the rich want to exercise their first amendment rights, then they can stand on a street corner, write a letter, or volunteer to *personally* help with a campaign, just like normal people do.

You are restricting Liberty because you don't like rich people. Interesting value system you have.

I'm not restricting liberty, I'm restricting the avenues for money to flow into politics because I don't think one person should have more influence over the political process than another, simply because they're lucky enough to be rich.

You seem to think the rich should explicitly be allowed more influence in politics than the poor. Interesting value system *you* have.

Re:US, get out

[StikyPad]

No, I'm saying I oppose undue influence in politics.

Re:US, get out

[sgt scrub]

It is called a bipartisan bill because It was written by a republican and a democrat. That means one dipshit from both sides took part not that there was a "movement". Do you have a list of others that were part of writing the bill? I'm sure it will come out soon enough; but, if you already know please point them out. I understand the AFL-CIO showed their ignorance so pointing them out isn't necessary.

Re:US, get out

[cyber-vandal]

I don't see your reading skills working too well you fucking moron:

As much as all the British blood that was shed, bloodshed that is insultingly belittled every time you or one of your compatriots says something like "if it wasn't for us y'all be speaking German right now" as if the Europeans just sat around doing nothing while the brave Americans did all the fighting.

I never said you said it in your post on this site but I've heard it way too many fucking times from too many stupid fucking Americans belittling all the Europeans who died to defeat Hitler. Now stick your dumb fat head back up your stupid fat arse.

Re:US, get out

[webnut77]

I see you have a temper and a limited vocabulary.

Re:US, get out

[mug funky]

investigating him to be charged... and most likely they'll come up with nothing (though they may still be able to extract a few more words from Bradley Manning, if his face is still intact enough to speak).

if there were a warrant, i'll start to worry.

Re:US, get out

[Coren22]

The Stop Online Piracy Act was introduced by Representative Lamar Smith [R-TX] and was initially co-sponsored by Howard Berman [D-CA], Marsha Blackburn [R-TN], Mary Bono Mack [R-CA], Steve Chabot [R-OH], John Conyers [D-MI], Ted Deutch [D-FL], Elton Gallegly [R-CA], Bob Goodlatte [R-VA], Timothy Griffin [R-AR], Dennis A. Ross [R-FL], Adam Schiff [D-CA] and Lee Terry [R-NE]. As of November 15, 2011, there were 24 sponsors.[68]

Though this section I find heartening:

Opponents of the bill include Google, Yahoo!, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, AOL, LinkedIn, eBay, Mozilla Corporation, and Wikimedia Foundation, the Brookings Institution and human rights organizations such as Reporters Without Borders,[71] the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the ACLU and Human Rights Watch.[72][73][74]
The Library Copyright Alliance (including the American Library Association) objects to the broadened definition of "willful infringement" and the introduction of felony penalties for noncommercial streaming infringement, stating that these changes could encourage criminal prosecution of libraries.[75]
On November 16, Tumblr, Mozilla, Reddit, Techdirt, and the Center for Democracy and Technology were among many other Internet companies that protested the Stop Online Piracy Act by participating in a so-called "American Censorship Day". They displayed black banners over their site logos with the words "STOP CENSORSHIP".[76]
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi has expressed opposition to the bill, as well as Representatives Darrell Issa (R-CA) and presidential candidate Ron Paul (R-TX), who joined nine Democrats to sign a letter to other House members warning that the bill would cause "an explosion of innovation-killing lawsuits and litigation."[77] "Issa said the legislation is beyond repair and must be rewritten from scratch," reported The Hill. [78] Issa and Lofgren have announced plans for legislation offering "a copyright enforcement process modeled after the U.S. International Trade Commission's (ITC) patent infringement investigations"

Re:US, get out

[cavreader]

I don't believe I said the US won the war by themselves.. It was the weather and Hitlers refusal to provide additional resources that beat the Germans.
The US did provide large amounts of steel, oil, fuel, and food to assist Russia. Without a western front it would have taken Russia longer to win but it would have been a close thing. With out the western front Hitler could have used the resources from of all the countries they had conquered, There would never have been a western front without the US. None of the major European powers were capable of pushing the Germans out of their countries. England did not have the resources to attempt an invasion of mainland Europe. France had an active resistant movement but they were not strong enough to eject the Germans. US casualties were lower than those of Russia and all of the other countries involved but the US casualties were created by fighting on foreign soil. Had the battles taken place in the US the casualties would have been higher.

Re:US, get out

[shutdown -p now]

Without a western front it would have taken Russia longer to win but it would have been a close thing.

Yes on the first part, no on the second one. As I noted already a (meaningful) Western Front was effectively opened in mid-1944 - thanks to U.S., yes! - but by that time Soviet forces already handed several major defeats to the Axis (most notably, Stalingrad and then Kursk), and were steadily pushing back for over a year. Western front distracted sufficient resources that Soviets were able to deal the final blow in less than a year after Normandy, and it may have extended for another year without it, but that defeat for the Nazis was inevitable was clear by the end of 1943.

US casualties were lower than those of Russia and all of the other countries involved but the US casualties were created by fighting on foreign soil. Had the battles taken place in the US the casualties would have been higher.

I find a more meaningful metric of war contribution to be not casualties that the country has itself sustained (by that measure, China would be ahead - but those weren't particularly meaningful casualties), but rather those that it had inflicted on the enemy. By that measure, over 2/3 of total Axis casualties were inflicted by Soviet Union, and most of the remaining 1/3, by U.S. If you look at geographic spread, then U.S. ones come mostly from defeating Japan (and the ratio of U.S. to Japanese casualties is quite remarkable there - in that sense, Americans were most efficient in that war by a large margin), whereas in Europe vast majority was inflicted by Soviets.

So, ultimately, the way I see it is this: USSR was the country that liberated Europe from Nazis, with minor help from USA. USA was the country that liberated East Asia from Japanese, pretty much single-handedly. USA, also, was the country that spared Western Europe from Soviet occupation, that would have undoubtedly come after kicking out the Nazis.

Re:US, get out

[KingBenny]

i'm not a christianic by far but : a-men to that ! there's a few troublesome figures in europe as well however ... hadopi in france, the italian holier than thou dude ... but i'm guessing they will be silenced soon enough if it show where the votes are :) I just cant get through to why americans swallos all that sht like nice little beaches ... wave after wave, i see and hear a lot of complaining but no one or no group actually standing up and getting into politics (cf the youngest MEP ever here being a member of the rising albeit unluckily named pirate party) but what's in a name ey?
(id say the intention of its creator, in this case the movement being started as response to the more or less dictatorial detention of the two loudmouths of the piratebay, they proved themselves to be more than loudmouths however and it looks like the anti-bully movement is growing, even getting support at circles high enough to put superobama in his place) we'll see...

Happy news

[davecb]

Bravo to the EP. Now if we could get Canada to grow a backbone...
--dave

Re:Happy news

[Anonymous Coward]

Bravo to the EP. Now if we could get Canada to grow a backbone...

--dave

As much as I agree with the sentiment, I fear that this might actually be counterproductive. A lot of US Senators might react by saying, "you can't tell us what to do, we're a sovereign country, and I'm going to vote in favor of this thing out of spite."

Re:Happy news

[Elbart]

Hats don't have backbones.

Re:Happy news

[Beorytis]

"...I'm going to vote in favor of this thing out of spite."

As completely insane as it is, it does appear that a lot of congressional "action" is motivated solely by spite for the opposing party. It's like one gigantic Ultimatum Game that ends up affecting the whole world. How do we manipulate the anterior insulae of congress?

Re:Happy news

[Xest]

Well you had one for years, but then Harper got a majority.

Re:Happy news

[quacking duck]

This. Big time this.

The previous majority Liberal government agreed to fight in Afghanistan, but refused to get browbeat into the war in Iraq. The current Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper (who was opposition leader in 2003) wanted nothing more than to follow the Americans (and British) in at the time. Of course he flip-flopped once he found out the Bush administration was lying about WMDs in Iraq.

Parts of Harper's big "tough on crime" bill has been derided by right-wing elected and prison officials in Texas as being unworkable. Texans should know, they tried the extreme tough-on-crime route, and it's not working for them, even with capital punishment. The Conservatives are going ahead anyway; apparently Texas Republicans are too left-wing and socialist to know what they're talking about.

This is par for the course for the Conservatives--dogma over science and facts.

Re:Happy news

[Xest]

For what it's worth I'm British, but my girlfriend is Canadian and we live in the UK.

Up until Harper got a majority we were seriously considering moving over to Canada. I don't much like our Tory government in the UK but Harper's Tories seem even worse.

I hope it's just temporary, and that Canada isn't going down the same path of right wing rationality that America has gone so far down it can't seem to find it's way back from. Certainly all my friends in Canada from various places and walks of life seem to dislike him so there is hope perhaps that next time he gets a kicking - well, that's if he's still allowing elections by then and hasn't declared himself grand dicator of Canada of course ;)

US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[ackthpt]

3.. 2.. 1..

For all the ills of Europe, they seem to have a pretty good grip on freedoms which are eroding in USA and Australia.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[roc97007]

> 3.. 2.. 1..

And that's entirely different from the Great China Firewall because... no wait...

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[migla]

I don't know. I mean, sure there are lots of great advantages in the eu compared to the us, like not locking up such large proportions of poor darker skinned people, not such a deep and wide economic chasm dividing the people, vacation, health care... And now recently also this freedom thing...

I'm kind of surprised about this. Maybe everything in the halls of power in Europe hasn't turned completely to shit just yet. If it isn't just posturing, then great, but I won't get my hopes up about a non-retarded world to live in.

Were headed for the same authoritarian privatized stratification. The same ideology with the same bizarrely rich people on top is shaping our world too. We're just a bit behind due to some legacy cruft in our culture and politics.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[Obfuscant]

For all the ills of Europe, they seem to have a pretty good grip on freedoms which are eroding in USA and Australia.

Yes, because there certainly is no need for anyone to be able to discuss the National Socialist Party or any recent revivals of same anywhere in Europe, or to allow discussion of the founder of Islam, or any such stuff that we can do over here. Certainly no need for that at all. And God knows that British bans on info on celebrities are certainly required in these uncertain times.

Please, Europe isn't the Bastion of freedom any more than the US is.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[damburger]

Only Germany forbids Nazi symbols by law (gee, I wonder why?) and the Danish government, along with most other EU governments, reacted with indignation when radical islamists when crazy over some cartoons. Yes, super injunctions here in the UK are stupid. So stupid that one of our own MPs scuppered one in Parliament to prove a point. The US does not have a monopoly on freedom.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[ackthpt]

I don't know. I mean, sure there are lots of great advantages in the eu compared to the us, like not locking up such large proportions of poor darker skinned people, not such a deep and wide economic chasm dividing the people, vacation, health care... And now recently also this freedom thing...

I'm kind of surprised about this. Maybe everything in the halls of power in Europe hasn't turned completely to shit just yet. If it isn't just posturing, then great, but I won't get my hopes up about a non-retarded world to live in.

Were headed for the same authoritarian privatized stratification. The same ideology with the same bizarrely rich people on top is shaping our world too. We're just a bit behind due to some legacy cruft in our culture and politics.

Judge Dredd will be by shortly because you haven't got the right attitude.

I dunno. Really, I see so many laws motivated by MONEY in the USA, who gets the monopoly, who can take it from someone else, outrageous tort awards, etc. I feel like EU is more often writing laws to protect the people or expand their rights (imagine writing a law that actually restricts the power of government, whoa!)

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you kidding me? Try publicly saying or doing something that offends Muslims in Europe. In a number of countries that will get you in trouble with the government.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[shutdown -p now]

Only Germany forbids Nazi symbols by law (gee, I wonder why?)

IIRC, it's actually because the Allied Powers (and specifically U.S.) demanded that their policies during the denazification campaign would be enshrined into law - it was one of the conditions on which occupation would end and Germany would be granted sovereignty.

On the other hand, there are some EU members (mostly the new bunch in the East) who have banned communist symbols.

Also, there's a bunch of other silliness in EU, like the overly broad hate speech laws, and positively insane weapon laws in some countries (notably, UK - I hear you can't even have a decent knife on you there these days?). All in all, I guess it evens out in terms of freedoms. In terms of overall positive effect on the society, though, I think Europe is ahead.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it infringes on MY rights and freedoms. And I am NOT a US citizen.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[Builder]

You cannot carry a fixed blade or folding knife that locks open without having a reason that will stand up in court.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[Hentes]

Exactly, the European countries (mind you, not the same as the EU) have many problems with free speech, and I think this move is mostly motivated by the fear that the US is using its ownership of the majority of the Internet infrastructure to enforce its own economical goals.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[glorybe]

I can accept easily the idea that poverty can make people dangerous. But dark skin has nothing to do with it. Cops arrest people who are easy to catch. Certain types of crime tend to stand out and make for easy arrests. The poor often suffer educational issues and poor diet and habitus of life style also tend to make criminals foolish in the types and methods of crimes that they commit. Very few cops set out to arrest more black people than white people. And getting convictions on black folks can be difficult as well as there are usually black folks on juries. There is another factor in that it is not unusual for black youth to be somewhat in rebellion as history indicates to them that the system is somewhat in debt to them. If people want to get away with their crimes they need a lot more education and intelligence and had best understand that successful criminals are lonely and isolated as they must never admit to any elements of their crimes to anyone at all. They can't even put their money in a bank or anything that might draw questions about how they made their money. There really are crooks who walk about with a suit case with a life's earnings in it. There are even motels that specialise in keeping them safe and happy as they can spend cash with ease.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[blau]

Yes, because there certainly is no need for anyone to be able to discuss the National Socialist Party or any recent revivals of same anywhere in Europe [...]

You can do that anywhere in Europe including Germany.
I don't even know what you're on about with Muhammad.

Try again?

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[chihowa]

I freaked out a couple of British exchange students at university by pulling out a (not big or scary) pocket knife to open a plastic bag in a chemistry class. The idea of having a pocket knife on you is not unheard of in the US, but apparently it's completely alien in the UK. It's easy to outlaw the things that nobody does.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[MBGMorden]

The idea of having a pocket knife on you is not unheard of in the US, but apparently it's completely alien in the UK. It's easy to outlaw the things that nobody does.

In many parts of the US NOT having a pocket knife on your would draw some strange looks. It's just something everyone carries (and uses regularly - the need for a blade comes up constantly).

With guns it's much similar. Over 50% of our population owns a gun. Depending on which study you look at, between 3% and 6% of our population possess a concealed weapons permit. Its not even an issue here - hell I didn't even know that there was such a thing as being "anti-gun" until I got to college. In my hometown such an idea was just completely foreign. It's ingrained into our culture here (hell besides carrying for protection and hunting, just for target shooting and IPSC/USPSA competition I tend to shoot 300-400 rounds per week).

Really, most countries that claim to be "free" at this point are mostly advertising their own particular flavor of "freedom". If you point out the things you're not free to do there the response is an immediate quip that you SHOULDN'T be able to do those things. In reality, every place is free if you can do everything except what someone else tells you you shouldn't be able to do.

If I could find a nice country where it was truly free, then I'd be all up for moving there. I don't mind higher taxes or public healthcare, nor do I mind regulations on businesses to prevent monopolies. I do want absolute complete freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, and freedom from any religious or morally based laws (ie, if people want to engage in prostitution or drug use, that's their business). Sadly, I just don't think such a nation exists anywhere on this planet.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[roc97007]

Right, I understand. And I buy compact fluorescents because it saves on my electricity bill and it's not my country that's being poisoned by their manufacture.

It's all about me, and it sucks being everyone else.

Re:US to erect Great Atlantic Firewall

[Builder]

Hell, the Leatherman Supertool can get you a criminal conviction here. I'd been carrying one for a decade and freaking people out with it before I found that out!

If more foreign criticism follows

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet foreign emulation of misguided legislation follows first.

That does it

[Anonymous Coward]

We've lost. The Republicans in Congress will get their panties in a bunch and insist on passing this bill, even if they might have been convinced otherwise before. They simply can't have it appear that they're taking orders or even advice from Europe.

Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

At the same time they release a directive that includes optional web censoring. For the sake of our children, of course!

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

And whats wrong with protecting our children?

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Reminds me of our beloved four horsemen.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Spad]

I believe you're referring to section 47, which as you point out is entirely optional for member states and says things such as:

Mechanisms may also be put in place to block access from the Union's territory to internet pages identified as containing or disseminating child pornography. The measures undertaken by Member States in accordance with this Directive in order to remove or, where appropriate, block websites containing child pornography could be based on various types of public action, such as legislative, non-legislative, judicial or other.

Emphasis mine.

Whichever basis for action or method is chosen, Member States should ensure that it provides an adequate level of legal certainty and predictability to users and service providers.

Any such developments must take account of the rights of the end users and comply with existing legal and judicial procedures and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

It's not quite the same thing is what SOPA is proposing to do now, is it.

Re:Hypocrites!

[GauteL]

At the same time they release a directive that includes optional web censoring. For the sake of our children, of course!

Look, you may have a point about the directive, but you're trying hard to ruin it with that word optional.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ostensible protection of children is used to justify all kinds of unjust violations of freedom and privacy, and many such violations actually don't do much if anything to make children safer.

If you want someone to gladly become your slave, just insist that you are taking control of their lives "to protect the children" (whether that is true or not).

Here is a good quote on the subject:

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

--Mein kampf, Adolf Hitler.

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

Well, if you think that making pedophiles go out in the streets hunting for real live children to molest instead of letting them jerk off over animated pr0n protects your children...

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

No, but slamming the US for proposing a law that includes censorship (regardless of the approach) while permitting their own members to censor their own citizens' access, is hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Doesn't matter. Taking a stance against censorship while giving its own members permission to do exactly the same thing is hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

This. What is there on the Internet to be protected from? Seeing a few images? I've yet to see sufficient scientific evidence to support the theory that seeing a few images somehow scars a child for life.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Göring said similar things years after:

Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.

History doesn't repeat, it rhymes.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Spad]

Not really. The EU is slamming the US for proposing a law that includes censorship of other countries by way of a unilateral decision that "if we can access it from the US and it's technically possible to shut it down, we're allowed to" and the conditions under which SOPA would "allow" this are so vague as to be applicable to just about any site that they want it to.

The EU directive in question permits member states to block access to sites containing child pornography for their own citizens if they so choose.

I'm not saying that the EU is inherently right in what this directive permits or forbids, but to say that the two things are comparable is seriously misstating the situation.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

Because trying to censor the web is retarded.
It won't stop a god damn thing from happening.

It's not exactly hard for some dude to go on Facebook and interact with kids if they do wanted to, without ever being found out too.
And it won't stop some molester from grabbing a kid from the outsides of a school, even several molesters in a van.

B-B-BUT THE PEDOS ON THE INTERNETS AND THE KIDS, IF WE HIDE THE CHILD PORN, EVERYONE IS SAFE!
Seriously, you are talking about retards who have the intelligence of repressed kids beaten with a cane for rejecting some holy saviour.
I'm not even kidding, the idiots who push for this are religious fundies who want to push their agenda against everyone, they already succeeded in making everyone think that a pedo is anyone who interacts with someone under the Age of Consent through FUD tactics and legislation. And worse, this is even held up in court to such retarded extents, including HAVING TEENS LABELED SEX OFFENDERS FOR SHARING NAKED PICTURES WITH EACH OTHER IN A RELATIONSHIP, AS WELL AS "PRODUCING CHILD PORN." That is how retarded this shit is.
They are delusional and should be removed from any position of power permanently. They aren't rational.
The same is happening right now in the EU with the recent push for bans on animated people "who look young" HAVING RIGHTS AS IF THEY ARE REAL PEOPLE. It isn't even about age either, if they look young, PEEEEEEEEDO, regardless of whatever universe they live in, or even if they have god damn thighs of rabbits and could probably kick a persons head off. (see the TERA Elin race mess)

"Children" aren't innocent, they are abusive little shits who now know that they can take advantage of their position in law as "a minor" to get what they want. AND MANY USE IT. I know this personally as someone related who is now officially dead to me was doing this nonsense with a few people, threatening them with "I'll say you are a pedo if you don't give me stuff."
I'm not even kidding either. Little slut got caught out though and she is in deep shit.
It happens a lot more too.
But of course, we can't have people knowing that now, can we? "Children" are innocent after all.
Fuck children. Seriously. Actually, no, fuck the law and government for allowing absolutely unstable, delusion retards any say in what happens.
Keep your nutcases America, we don't want them. We got rid of your idiots once before, we'll damn well do it again if we have to.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

I'm really sorry but you are very very stupid. Why? Because the "few Images" you talk about are of abused children They didn't have a choice of being photographed Or being sexually abused for someones amusement.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

Againt whats wrong with protecting our children. Answer the question.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

I already stated that I wouldn't want to compare the two approaches and I totally understand your point. My point, however was: They basically say “Censorship is cool with us, as long as we stay in control”. And this rhetoric is wrong on so many levels.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Spending money in order to develop a censoring infrastructure instead of spending it for things like rehab or prevention doesn't protect a single child. Google Cleanternet.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

I gather that you are a pedophile?

Re:Hypocrites!

[CmdrPony]

US tries to censorship other countries. That EU thing would only optionally allow blocking child porn inside their own countries, and puts serious legal limitations on it. Two completely different things.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Pseudonym Authority]

Those images of the cartel's victims being brutally tortured and having their genitals shoved in their mouth and lit on fire didn't have a choice either, but it isn't illegal. What's the difference. Why should any arbitrarily large of number be illegal?

Besides that, [your] GP said animated, as in animated, as in it isn't real anyway.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Pseudonym Authority]

Oh, never mind my previous reply to you. You are an idiot; I am ashamed at having debased myself by thinking that you were open to reason.

Re:Hypocrites!

[sgt scrub]

I thought Rush Limbaugh said that. Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

I believe in giving tools to the parent to protect their children. If that means they can censor their children's internet so be it.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

Think about it, the only place you would see an image like that is in a R 17 or X rated movie on a cable channel that must be payed for that parents HAVE tools "V Chips/password protected channels" to prevent their children from viewing that kinda content so no its not legal because its age restricted content. If television has rating/games have rating/music has rating why not the Internet? And Child pornography is illegal

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but slamming the US for proposing a law that includes censorship (regardless of the approach) while permitting their own members to censor their own citizens' access, is hypocrisy.

Its a matter of degree.
The US is going nuclear on the internet thing, the EU on the other hand tries to maintain a certain balance between different needs..
So you can't actually compare the two.

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

Because the "few Images" you talk about are of abused children They didn't have a choice of being photographed Or being sexually abused for someones amusement.

1) I used the word "animated" for a reason

2) Violent crimes must be punished, not swept under the carpet.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, but slamming the US for proposing a law that includes censorship (regardless of the approach) while permitting their own members to censor their own citizens' access, is hypocrisy.

So respecting national sovereignty of its member states in this matter, by allowing them to use their own legislation in accordance with their respective constitution is comparable to federally mandating censorship of foreign nations without giving the states a choice ?

Re:Hypocrites!

[Soupster]

Here is a good quote on the subject:

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

--Mein kampf, Adolf Hitler.

That quote does not appear anywhere in Mein Kampf. It was made up, probably by some random guy on the internet.

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

If television has rating/games have rating/music has rating why not the Internet?

There's plenty of software which let's you do just that on your own computer even without the government outlawing everything inappropriate for three-year-olds on the Internet.

And Child pornography is illegal

Many things which are illegal are also wrong but not all of them. Child abuse has to be punished as any violent sex crime, even harder. But outlawing pictures, especially fake ones, does more harm than good.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Bucky24]

Does sound like something Hitler would say though. Or maybe Stalin.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Bucky24]

Someone with a UID as low as your should have already heard this. For starters, children need to grow. If we protect children from every single mistake and tell them they are wonderful darlings they grow up spoiled and weak. Rather like our current generation of teenagers, actually. Yes, we need to protect them from things that they can't handle, but that should NOT be up to the government. That should be up to parents, IMO (yes, parents can seriously fuck their kids up, but that is the exception, not the rule, and there are better ways of dealing with that issue).

Second, "protect the children" is something that is just like patriotism. It's a great thing, but used to push bills that don't have anything to do with it. Any politician who stands up and says no to a bill that is labelled as a "patriotic bill" is considered to be unpatriotic. Likewise any politician who says no to a "protect the children" bill is considered to be cold-hearted (which they all are, but they don't like being portrayed that way). It's a buzzword used to sell bills that have absolutely nothing to do with children, or if they did in the beginning they have been twisted out of context.

Again, there is nothing wrong with US protecting our children. But that is our job, not the job of the federal government.

There of course is the flip side in that the government wants to bring up good citizens (not even citizens that are meek and fall in line, just good ones), but since my office is closing I really can't go into that in detail. Someone else can if they want to.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

Pictures are of abused children, a child cannot give permission. They have been groomed and also just plain raped. How is that not harmful? I see no reason for fake ones as it takes a sick individual to even think about sexually abusing a child in any manner fake or otherwise. Some things will never be acceptable and this is one of them.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

I see no reason

Finally, you understand your problem!

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

Yes our children have to grow but they do not need any help from pornographers about sex. And remember politicians are parents as well. Protect the children might be a buzzword to a person who doesn't have there own children but to us parents and grand parents its not a joking matter. And as far as i can remember every single law that was proposed for the safety of children that also took away adults rights has failed time and time again. I am not anti porn but the porn industry has not self regulated what so ever to any extent and thats just plain wrong and they need to be made too just like every other business is regulated because they couldn't do it themselves.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Bucky24]

Shouldn't a parent who has children too young to watch porn be regulating their internet usage?

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like the US slamming others countries that want nuclear deterrence, despite the US having ,massive nuclear weapon arsenals ?

Re:Hypocrites!

[euroq]

+1

Nonetheless, I still think censoring other countries is worse than a country censoring itself. It goes against my general golden rule, "I don't care what you do, as long you don't harm me. You let me do whatever I want to do, as long as I don't harm you."

Re:Hypocrites!

[shutdown -p now]

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

--Mein kampf, Adolf Hitler.

It's a fake.

Re:Hypocrites!

[shutdown -p now]

I hope you realize that what counts as "child abuse" in your country can be perfectly legal in another one - quite often right across the border. E.g. many countries place the age of consent at 16, some even go to 14. Of course, the laws are often even sillier in that the age limit for "child porn" is often higher than actual age of consent - brutally sodomizing a 16 year old is perfectly alright in Canada (provided that consent was given), but take a picture of her nipple close up, and you're in for a few years.

All in all, considering that it was common to girls to be married by the age of 14, and be bearing children shortly afterwards, for most of our history, I think your claim about "sick individuals" is rather hollow.

Re:Hypocrites!

[shutdown -p now]

The key difference is that censorship laws enacted by a democratic state against its own populace are there - presumably - with the consent of said populace, and can be repealed through the usual democratic procedures (elections etc). On the other hand, when censorship applied by one country against another, the citizens of that latter country have no recourse.

Re:Hypocrites!

[gl4ss]

I thought Rush Limbaugh said that. Thanks for clearing that up.

"Quotes on the internet are interesting, but it's hard to verify the source" - your mom.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a difference between preventing access to content that is almost universally regarded as wrong and is illegal in the jurisdiction the censorship is being performed for (i.e. kiddie porn) and seizing property belonging to somebody engaging in actions that are entirely legal in the location they are being performed in (e.g. taking away the domain of a site which, among other content, has links to other sites where copyright content can be downloaded without permission of the copyright holder, a kind of site which has been held to be perfectly legal in at least some EU jursidictions, c.f. rojadirecta).

Re:Hypocrites!

[Tom]

I believe you're referring to section 47, which as you point out is entirely optional for member states and says things such as:

You need a refresher on european politics. Here's how it works:

Government A wants to do evil things to its citizens. It goes ahead and tries, and gets a bloody nose (mass protests, law thrown out by highest court for being unconstitutional, whatever). Don't for a second think they give up. Next step is secret backroom talks and then a law passed on the EU level. A couple years later, they come back with the original idea on the national level, now claiming that even though they really, really don't want to, unfortunately the evil EU is forcing them to implement this new law...

And details like "may" are routinely forgotten about. That's just there because some countries said "we're not really interested in this right now" in the secret backroom dealings. It allows those governments who want this to move ahead, and those who'd rather do some other oppressing first to work on their own schedule.

Re:Hypocrites!

[makomk]

Now if only they required states that do this to notify the police forces in other EU countries when they do this to child porn hosted in the EU. The UK filter maintainers don't, presumably so they can boast about how much child porn they're blocking.

Re:Hypocrites!

[makomk]

On the other hand, there's usually all sorts of nasty images of real-life violence on news programs that are deemed suitable for kids...

Re:Hypocrites!

[randyleepublic]

I never thought I'd memorize lines from the Fuhrer, but your quote is so perfect. A million thanks!

Re:Hypocrites!

[MrMickS]

To be honest if the US want to put up a firewall that stops me being able to view content in the US or people in the US from viewing content from without I don't care. If the US choose to manipulate DNS registries to stop me in Europe being able to view content housed in Europe then I have serious issues with that. That people either can't, or won't, see a difference between the two doesn't surprise me it does sadden me though. It shows that reason has been lost to the world.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

My claim about sick individuals stands firm. There is NO reason for an adult to have sex with a child and by child I'm talking infant to 17. 16 is just too young And I'm betting you don't have children and certainly not a girl it seems most with your ideas are unmarried and childless.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

Do you really need me to tell you the answer to that? Im 54 my children missed the internet as children and i would have used every tool i could to protect my children from scum.

Re:Hypocrites!

[shutdown -p now]

My claim about sick individuals stands firm. There is NO reason for an adult to have sex with a child and by child I'm talking infant to 17. 16 is just too young

So basically, Canada and Europe are officially "sicko countries" (since that's legal in them)?

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

Pictures are of abused children, a child cannot give permission. They have been groomed and also just plain raped. How is that not harmful?

How is it harmful to have naked pictures of MYSELF from when I was 4 years old? How is it harmful when a 17 year old girl takes naked pictures of herself and sends them to her boyfriend?

Seriously, in most developed countries around the world, 15-year-olds can have sex and it's perfectly legal. But if they take a picture or record a video of doing this perfectly legal thing, they've commited a crime which will be probably considered worse than murder by anyone who sees their criminal record. Where's the logic in that?

I see no reason for fake ones as it takes a sick individual to even think about sexually abusing a child in any manner fake or otherwise.

Careful there. A lot of the greatest artist in history qualify as "sick individuals". Does the book Naked Lunch by William S. Borroughs ring any bells? How about H. R. Giger and his designs for the Alien movie franchise? What about Edgar Allan Poe? Or what about the Decadent movement of the late 19th and early 20th century?

Re:Hypocrites!

[StikyPad]

That's not what Wikipedia is about to say!

Re:Hypocrites!

[Bucky24]

As you said in your post above, answer the question.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Yup. Tools that are used locally on the computer. Like this AOL thing. If they were to censor the net in order to protect children from seeing this imagery, shouldn't they be censoring ALL sorts of porn, instead? I don't understand your logic.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

That's my point. The EU basically says that they have no problem with censorship as long as they decide which sites to censor. And yes, this is hypocrisy.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

By definition.

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

So, I gather that you are okay with internet censorship, as long as your government controls it, right?

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Are you familiar with the phrase “Principiis obsta”?

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

Yeah, citizens of those states censoring their web will certainly rejoice: “Phew, at least the US don't censor it!” Are you really just now trying to justify censorship, because there are worse ways to pull it off?

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

With all due respect, sir, the best way you can protect your grandchildren right now is by telling people to get off your lawn. As far as the Internet is concerned, you don't seem to have any clue whatsoever what is an actual threat to children and what is not, much less how to protect anyone who needs it.

Re:Hypocrites!

[euroq]

There is nothing in my statement justifying censorship. I said that external censorship is worse than self-censorship - the gist of my mantra is that external harm is worse than self harm.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

You have children?

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

I see where you're going with that question. If I answer "no", you'll say that when I have my own children, I'll react to any alleged threat with the same hysteria you've shown in this discussion regardless of whether the threat is real or a fictional bogeyman. If I answer "yes", you'll say that I don't love them enough or something like that because I don't show enough hysteria over protecting them. (The space between "over" and "protecting" is optional.) Did I get that right?

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

If you dont have children then you dont have a clue. Kids change things always have always will.

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

I know very well that kids change things. I also know that this change sometimes results in irrational knee-jerk reactions which cause a lot of harm to the kids for no benefit at all. Sadly, the phrase "think of the children" works as an off switch for higher brain functions of many otherwise rational people.

Let's see where you stand. GPS tracking device for kids. Good or bad?

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

Thats way too vague to answer

Re:Hypocrites!

[next_ghost]

Not really. In fact, it's exactly the same question pondered by parents who think about buying a GPS tracking device for their kids. Nobody keeps you from writing down the entire list of benefits and downsides.

Re:Hypocrites!

[Stan92057]

No

Re:Hypocrites!

[F-3582]

See, I guess that we're agreeing to something. Of course imposing a censoring infrastructure on others is worse by some orders of magnitude. I was never disputing that. Neverheless, he (the EU) who lives in a glass house shouldn't throw stones. Would you really believe in the honesty of someone who criticizes those bloody hooligans who go on a rampage after some ball game, if the very same person regularly beat up his own wife and kids? Probably not, I guess.

I am truly chagrined...

[roc97007]

...that the EU is showing more sense than the US....

Re:I am truly chagrined...

[jd]

The basic problem arose when the Pilgrims migrated from Europe to the New World, splitting society in half. This left Europe with brains and no backbone, whereas the US has backbone and no brains.

Re:I am truly chagrined...

[cowboy76Spain]

The EU parliament can call for policies that make sense... because they know nobody is listening to them.

"EU parliament" sounds great, but in reality countries have not ceded sovereignity to it. What really counts are the agreements between the presidents and PM, who are the ones that can push the agreements into their countries. The EU parliament is some sort of golden elephany graveyard (no longer popular politics are sent there to keep them happy and quiet).

Re:I am truly chagrined...

[Anonymous Coward]

US has been called a brain-drain. Apparently it is were the brains are circling when flushed out the drain.

Re:I am truly chagrined...

[Anonymous Coward]

until 911 proved 'American freedoms' had no balls.

Re:I am truly chagrined...

[haploc]

Yet the EP has enough power to block and ask for amendements before they agree and sign off new laws.

Time to replace DNS

[vadim_t]

I think this is a sign that DNS needs getting replaced with a non-centralized system.

Is there anybody working on such a thing?

Re:Time to replace DNS

[CmdrPony]

There are several such projects, but nothing will ever come out of them because casual people just won't make the switch. That is why people need to demand that governments don't start censoring the internet, and tell them it's acceptable practice.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Thundersnatch]

I think this is a sign that DNS needs getting replaced with a non-centralized system.

Is there anybody working on such a thing?

Good luck with that. This is an industry that hasn't replaced IPv4 despite 15 years of warnings. An industry in which horrifyingly broken and insecure protocols such as SMTP and FTP are still ubiquitous. Once something is widely deployed, it basically cannot be changed, or only changed over the span of decades.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, it's pretty already decentralized as it stands now. Unless your talking about some crazy incarnation of a peer-to-peer network.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[stephanruby]

I think the WTO needs to get involved.

If the US blocks any web sites, the European governments should just block sites like Amazon or Ebay.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[jbolden]

In theory there doesn't need to be any work. Someone just needs to do it. Anyone can run a DNS and those DNSes can have any policy. I already use Google's DNS as a backup DNS. There are a whole network of anti-censorship tools in place for countries with internet censorship. That's done and easy.

The problem is getting hundreds of millions of Americans to use them. Things like my iPhone don't even give me the option of setting up a secondary DNS.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Baloroth]

Yep: DNSChanger. Even works on Macs too!

Disclaimer: please do not blame me it you are actually stupid enough to try installing DNS Changer.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[vadim_t]

I think the only thing that is needed is a distributed system for the root servers.

  Then everybody can keep using their BIND or whatever setup, and the only action needed is to register it in the system, and for users to change to a different resolver.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[piggydoggy]

If the US blocks any web sites, the European governments should just block sites like Amazon or Ebay.

No, thank you.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck with that. This is an industry that hasn't replaced IPv4 despite 15 years of warnings.

What the hell you talking about? 9 of the 13 roots have AAAA records.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be happy with a carefully-written trojan that spreads around and silently makes all WinXP/Win7 machines start using a decentralized DNS lookup. As you've said, most people are casual users and wouldn't even notice so long as it didn't crash their systems...

It's one of the few cases where I think there could be such a thing as a white-hat trojan. Yeah I know it'd be immediately re-written by some kiddies to do damage or log keystrokes or something.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[washort]

Namecoin is a piece of that puzzle. http://dot-bit.org/

Re:Time to replace DNS

[jd]

Since DNS servers request from other DNS servers (and there can be multiple of those), individuals don't have to have secondary DNS. Anybody running a DNS server can add hooks into a parallel DNS tree. Which is both the greatest strength and the greatest weakness of the system. DNS owners who are corrupt or hostile can link into shadow DNS trees that contain fake entries. So long as the shadow tree has its own DNSSec keys, DNS won't notice any difference at all. Equally, DNS owners who are benign can do exactly the same thing, only pointing to DNS trees containing validated and "good" entries. Essentially undetectable.

Then those hundreds of millions of Americans would see everything in the shadow trees and never know that they were looking into the shadows.

Authorities trying to track down where the shadows lie (outside of Mordor) will need to invent a traceroute for the DNS protocol and had better hope all DNS servers (a) respond to it, and (b) always pass such packets to the shadow realms (a bloody stupid thing to do). Otherwise, the link(s) into the other tree(s) could be almost anywhere.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[sgt scrub]

as CmdrPony pointed out, there are alternative root servers. However, most U.S. ISP's already block them by ip. You have to know somebody that knows somebody to find one that works.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, if you look at http://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/ExampleProjects

www.freedomboxfoundation.org

  By the way, this project has a great many of the best minds in free software working on it. I hope for your own sakes you realize just how important this project is!?

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Commontwist]

Make it an add-on with Angry Birds. That ought to get the required user base.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Currently the only implementation is NameCoin and it is not that great.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

An industry in which horrifyingly broken and insecure protocols such as SMTP and FTP are still ubiquitous.

wtf? what is so "horrifyingly" broken and insecure about SMTP? That's like saying mailing your $100 money order in dark alley postal mailbox at midnight is horrifyingly broken and insecure because of USPS.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Andtalath]

SMTP without authorization is the fundament for spam.
SMTP has several known attack vectors.
SMTP is by default unencrypted every part of the way, even when sending passwords.
SMTP lacks any standardized (heck, any non-client measure) to encrypt data along the way.

Yes, it's broken.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

IPv4 is different from the rest of those: switching to IPv6 requiring replacing hardware. The rest are implemented in software. And DNS, SMTP, and FTP have all had significant fixes since they were invented: DNSSEC, the various SMTP authentication standards, and FTP has largely been replaced by SSH. All of those can be done incrementally. Admittedly, DNS's centralized nature makes replacing it with something else consistent hard.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[bryan1945]

Odd, your Mac link was 'page not found.'

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Google rolling an alternate DNS system into Chrome/webkit, and Mozilla adopting the same thing, could usher such a change.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and what percentage of the net's users have native IPv6 traffic? AAAA records don't mean shit to 98% of the net.

Re:Time to replace DNS

[Thundersnatch]

The root servers are already quite distributed, thank you. Are you suggesting the roots should contain differing data and somehow resolvers decide what to use by voting or reputation scoring or some shit like that? The PGP web of trust didn't take off. That model has been tried and doesn't work.

As a US Citizen,

[MSesow]

I wrote my senators and representative, and told them I oppose SOPA and PIPA. It may not be much, but it is worth it and it is ridiculously easy now that they have websites that accept messages.

Have you voiced your opinion, other than on some website that the policy makes never see?

Re:As a US Citizen,

[savanik]

I wrote my senators and representative, and told them I oppose SOPA and PIPA. It may not be much, but it is worth it and it is ridiculously easy now that they have websites that accept messages.

Have you voiced your opinion, other than on some website that the policy makes never see?

You mean like their website that accepts messages, which they never read? No, not really. That would require effort.

I swear, I've sent one of my state senators an email saying how opposed I was to a bill and I got a form letter back saying, 'Thank you, I agree that that this issue is of vital national importance and will do everything in my power to see this legislation passed.'

They don't read those. Nobody in the senate actually reads their email. Go out and vote for third party candidates. They pay attention to polls.

Re:As a US Citizen,

[sexconker]

I wrote my senators and representative, and told them I oppose SOPA and PIPA. It may not be much, but it is worth it and it is ridiculously easy now that they have websites that accept messages.

Have you voiced your opinion, other than on some website that the policy makes never see?

It's also ridiculously easy to have an unpaid intern hit the delete key for all those emails.

Re:As a US Citizen,

[Anonymous Coward]

I wrote my Congresspeople. One actually called me a thief in his reply and said that he wanted laws like SOPA to protect people who create and not steal. Either he doesn't understand that this law is for censorship and not copyrights, or can't see past the dollars stuffed in his pockets.

As for Europe, I'm sure they will just whine. The EU is absolutely toothless when it comes to any foreign policies or even raising a finger against abuses done on member company soil. It would be nice to see them do more than mindlessly fall into step with the US lobbyists. The US may be circling the drain, but you Europeans actually have a culture to salvage. You guys in countries that don't suck, do something, before you end up with privatized police from another nation demanding, "papers, please" before you can approach a downtown privatized park for fear that you might actually say something that Fox News doesn't like.

Re:As a US Citizen,

[SuricouRaven]

Back when it was letter-writing, they actually had paid secretaries skim and throw all those letters in the trash. But now they get such a volume of emails, they don't even give that much attention.

Re:As a US Citizen,

[MSesow]

I did receive a rather form-letter-looking response from Michael Bennet; looks like he is in favor of the legislation (well, that sucks). But I really don't expect even that much of a reply. I figure they probably just have some system to summarize the subjects of all of the mail, email and other messages they get, and probably just present the person with a summary about what percent of voices are for and against each topic. I really can't blame them, in fact, I think it would be a waste of taxes and time to pay a staff to write a response to everyone who writes in (and even then, form letters would make a lot of sense). Mostly, I just want to make sure that there is that one additional data point for my views.

Re:As a US Citizen,

[sgt scrub]

OK. So MSesow is on the most wanted pirate list. Who is next. :P

Re:As a US Citizen,

[haploc]

They don't read those. Nobody in the senate actually reads their email. Go out and vote for third party candidates. They pay attention to polls.

That's a thing I don't understand.. Always a lot of complaints about the Democrats and the Republicans, yet they still keep switching between only these two parties. If there was a sudden 15-20% rise in 3rd parties, or at minimum one state going 3rd party.. it would send a small, but maybe significant wave..

Re:As a US Citizen,

[bryan1945]

It took a few times, but when I bug my Pennsylvania Reps and Senators, I eventually get an actual response and the normal form emails. Obviously it's from a staffer running off bullet points, but they did actually reference specific things I mentioned in my email(s).
Must be a persistence thing.

Re:As a US Citizen,

[T Murphy]

I've written to my representative a handful of times and the responses, although not what I wanted, were clearly written to address what I wrote about (so they took time to write different form letters and figure out which fits what I said). I would assume they keep track of how many of which form letter they send out, thereby keeping track of which issues people care about and what side they're on.

Sure, your representative will disregard a lot of what people write, but if they start to see a consistent trend in the letters, they will remember those letters come election time should they face stiff competition at the polls. Of course the problem here is that things like SOPA aren't going to draw many letters (most people wouldn't know about it), but unless you write to congress the issues you care about will never be viewed as important come election day. Keep in mind, you wrote to your senator, who likely has a lot more letters to deal with than your local representative (assuming you don't live in a 1- or 2-rep state).

Re:As a US Citizen,

[StikyPad]

No, they don't read them, but they do *count* them, and the higher the number of constituents voicing a position on a given topic, the more likely they are to pay attention. At any rate, apathy has never solved anything.

Careful Europe....

[RPGillespie]

The music and entertainment industries don't like you meddling with the affairs of their puppets...

Re:Careful Europe....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dare I remind you how the EU reacted when Microsoft tried to pull a quick one by not following a direct court order? Care to have a guess how bad-ass the music industry will be when threatened with a fine of 1% of their yearly revenue per day?

As a US citizen

[nurb432]

I don't like what we are doing either, but if you think you have the right to tell another sovereign nation what they can and cant do like this, you can simply go to hell.

Besides, Europe doesn't have a spotless record either.. Hypocrites.

Re:As a US citizen

[jbolden]

I think they can and should condemn us when we act in ways contrary to the universal declaration of human rights. They aren't telling us what to do, just telling us we are being jerks.

Re:As a US citizen

[king neckbeard]

Tell that to the US. A big part of this is trying to control foreign websites, which are not within the US's jurisdiction.

Re:As a US citizen

[nurb432]

Umm internet access isn't a human right.

And yes they are, " what you are doing is wrong, do this instead" really is telling someone what to do. Not that they can enforce it of cousre, but they are telling us what they think we should be doing.

Re:As a US citizen

[Fluffeh]

but if you think you have the right to tell another sovereign nation what they can and cant do like this

Surely you are saying this in a tongue in cheek manner? The bill is behind this which is from the US does exactly what you say. It effectively kills a website off the internet because the US doesn't like it. At least all the other "Great Firewall" countries have the decency to only kill it off for their own countries. Do you really think that it is okay for the US to vanish a website hosted in another country, under a .com or .net TLD (which has nothing to do with the US) just because a judge in the US says it is okay? Can you really be that hypocritical?

Re:As a US citizen

[M0j0_j0j0]

Then why does the US insists on reminding China on how they should run the internet, it's the same approach, but US is the Chinese position now.

Re:As a US citizen

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

Unfettered access to information should be a human right. Obviously our (American) leadership seem to think so, why do you think we come down so hard on China and Iran for censoring the internet?

Re:As a US citizen

[zennyboy]

"Umm internet access isn't a human right."

It is in Europe

Re:As a US citizen

[LateArthurDent]

Umm internet access isn't a human right.

And yes they are, " what you are doing is wrong, do this instead" really is telling someone what to do. Not that they can enforce it of cousre, but they are telling us what they think we should be doing.

Internet access is a officially recognized human right in some European countries, and the UN is moving in that direction as well.

You can say you don't agree with that, but then don't go complaining when countries you believe are violating human rights tell you they don't recognize your pet right as a human right.

Re:As a US citizen

[Darth Hamsy]

"In some countries such as Estonia,[3] France, [4] Spain,[5] Finland[6] and Greece,[7] Internet access has already been made a human right." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_access

Re:As a US citizen

[residieu]

We (The USA) tell other sovereign nations what to do all the time.

Re:As a US citizen

[toutankh]

Right, because SOPA/PIPA is not about the US telling other sovereign nations what they can and cannot do.

Re:As a US citizen

[grcumb]

I don't like what we are doing either, but if you think you have the right to tell another sovereign nation what they can and cant do like this, you can simply go to hell.

Given that SOPA is an attempt to apply American law to websites and Internet services across the globe, I find your comment hilarious.

Re:As a US citizen

[Xest]

Yes, he's an example of precisely the problematic mindset some Americans have that is being discussed here.

They think it's okay to tell others what to do, to bully them into it, or simply force their will on them, in fact, they're so naive they don't even know they're doing it.

But then when someone does the same back they're suddenly up in arms about it, it's a gross injustice.

It's not entirely an American thing, many countries have this special kind of hypocritical ignorant idiot, but it's certainly more prominent there.

Re:As a US citizen

[Whorhay]

Actually I think that SOPA would make it so that a judge wouldn't even have to weigh in on it at all. It basically allows corporations to vanish sites and media that they don't like without any kind of legal due process.

Re:As a US citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

The REASON this is being condemned internationally is that is a means for the US to enforce US law on all Internet users, regardless of citizenship, residency or local law.

So... basically, what you just said "sovereign nation... blah.. go to hell"... yes, that's exactly what's in the EU statement.

Funny you should agree with them so forcefully, when you were actually trying to disagree.

Re:As a US citizen

[Anonymous Coward]

Can you really be that hypocritical?

Is that a hypothetical question, like "can it possible get any worse"?

America!

[Yakasha]

Fuck Ya!

Re:America!

[sgt scrub]

Do you have nice tits?

Re:America!

[Anonymous Coward]

We're gonna free the shit out of you!!

Censorship

[mr100percent]

It was only a few years ago that the US was complaining that the Voice of America broadcasts were banned via jamming in Cuba and Ethiopia, let alone the many years of jamming under the Iron Curtain. The EU is aware of the slippery slope, once you start blocking copyright stuff then they'll move on to politically undesirable stuff. The Bush administration actively worked to block Al Jazeera, for example.

Re:Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

Old news. The US has been blocking "politically undesirable" speech for years. Check out the story of Steve Marshall for one example.

I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[damburger]

Stop imposing illiberal legislation on people who never voted for it! That's OUR job!

Don't worry too much about it. The EU in its present form cannot survive at all. I'm all for European integration (which is unusual for a Brit) but the EU is a failed project whose bureaucratic nervous system is too sluggish to have told its brain that it is already dead. Its proclaimations should be taken as seriously as those made by the Supreme Soviet of the USSR in 1990.

Re:I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

My friend, as a future resident of Oceania, let me tell you the big plans we have for Airstrip One...I mean London. As a cultural cousin from across the pond I have to agree with your assessment of the state of the EU. Unfortunately the US is showing signs of crumbling too.

Re:I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[damburger]

Why does the fall of empires have to be a bad thing? Some people think the fall of the Roman Empire was bad - but the most immediate consequence for people living in Europe in the time was fewer legions pointing swords at them demanding tribute.

Re:I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The rapidity of the falls is concerning. Compared to Imperial China, the Roman Empire, Old and Middle Kingdom Egypt, etc. our current incarnation is a flash in the pan. The downfall of empires is a good thing since much of the time something better arises from the ashes. The building of the next government can be a painful and bloody process. All in all, you are absolutely correct. In the long-term empires failing is ultimately a good thing for humanity, in the short-term it can be dangerous and unstable. (It's probably sad that my first thought on that was the turns of Anarchy when you switch governments in the latest Civilization games).

Re:I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[mvdwege]

The most immediate consequence for people now living outside the Roman Empire was being raped and plundered by the next Germanic tribe migrating across their land.

Geez, if you're going to use analogies, for fucks sake learn the history first, will you?

Mart

Re:I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[Tom]

but the most immediate consequence for people living in Europe in the time was fewer legions pointing swords at them demanding tribute.

Actually, the most immediate consequence for people living within the Roman Empire was marauding hordes of barbarians burning down your village.

The "dark ages" aren't called that because sunspots made things dim for a couple hundred years. The amount of knowledge and skills lost was unbelievable. For several hundred years, old roman roads, despite not being maintained anymore and becoming more and more broken, were the best roads in all of Europe, because nobody knew how to make something like that. We're not talking pyramids here, we're talking about roads.

The world was a much different place back then. Knowledge as we know it was an unfamiliar concept. Knowledge was guarded and uncommon. Few people knew much about anything outside their own profession. Books were rare and valuable. If the US would be entirely destroyed by, say, a sudden eruption of the Yellowstone volcano, most of the knowledge would be preserved because copies of it exist in other places.

That's a relatively new thing. Less than a thousand years ago, any catastrophy that wipes out a civilization or any fall of an empire usually took most if not all of its knowledge down with it.

Re:I can just imagine the indignation of the EU

[thejynxed]

No, the most immediate consequence was they had not only the remainder of the Legions, but every bandit group, petty authority figure, AND the conquerors of Rome pointing swords at them demanding tribute.

And just how will they enforce that?

[blair1q]

Just how are the EU going to enforce that, when they don't have any money?

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[Carewolf]

I don't think Greece is going to do the enforcement. Italy might try but I wouldn't take them serious if I were you (we don't). The rest of the EU though, has good economies, the major dilemma is how much we are willing to pay to save our retarded baby brothers.

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[zennyboy]

I think you assume Greece == Europe

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[bazmail]

Just how are the EU going to enforce that, when they don't have any money?

Enforce what exactly?

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bwhahahahahahahahaha. No wait what? The rest of the EU have good economies; is comedy your strong suit er no? Look Europe is fucked. One thing learned from the 2008 financial fallout is that when one party (e.g. Lehman Bros.) goes under everybody who bought CDS against them calls their seller. If the seller is the same for a lot of parties, or any given seller sold a lot of CDS to anyone he is also going under (e.g. AIG). So pray tell what is the German and French gross exposure* to Greek and Italian bank and sovereign debt? Bonus points if you can tell me the same for the US. So other than being on the verge of a Lehman moment which this time won't take down banks but sovereigns also, how the heck is Europe "just fine." No really, if you think that go buy some Euro bonds, see ya at the next auction twiddlefuckhead.

*Net exposure is irrevelant if the asset your holding is a CDS with a party that is going to go bankrupt when the calls are actually made, again AIG. So you can figure all your CDS is worth approximately the price of abrasive toilet paper: nothing. Since your gross is larger than your net pretty much by exactly how much CDS you bought, gross is the one we are looking at.

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[nickco3]

Get the Germans to pay, just like any other day.

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[Fuzzums]

$-15.033.533.716.617 and counting...

Re:And just how will they enforce that?

[blair1q]

You might want to check the rest of our balance sheet.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

The "National Debt" might be the biggest number on there, but only in picas.

Harping on our government debt, which is a small fraction of our nation's wealth, ignores the fact that our corporations are sucking all the value out of small businesses and personal hands, even as the balance of payments is draining our total assets into foreign accounts.

And the "unfunded liabilities" number is completely made up. It's not current, and it's not amortized, and it's not even NPV. It's bullshit.

Well that's different

[Anonymous Coward]

Blocking American communications hinders the furtherance of American agendas. That is not acceptable.

Blocking non-American communications does not hinder the furtherance of American agendas. In some cases, it greatly helps this goal. Therefore, it is ok to block non-American communications, in some cases. But not all...when non-American communications happen to further American agendas, it is not ok for *anyone* to block those communications.

This position should be simple to understand, and will be enforced upon the entire world as much as is practically possible.

Al Gore

[noems]

Al Gore Invented the internet. He can censor it however he wants.

I think we all know the US response to this

[Chuck Chunder]

"Repression Fries"

Pot meet Kettle

[Anonymous Coward]

Blah blah blah US censorship blah blah. Yeah it sucks. But, how would our enlightened EU brothers and sisters respond to a website hosted within their borders called something like theholocaustneverhappened.com ?

Re:Pot meet Kettle

[bazmail]

Why don't you register it and find out?

Re:Pot meet Kettle

[Larryish]

http://www.theholocaustneverhappened.de/

Would Germany remove the entire domain from the Internet, or would they simply block access to it from clients in their own address space?

they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

The ".com" domain is the domain for US commercial entities; there is no other. Because the US is fairly laissez-faire about it, a lot of foreign registrants have been able to get .com domains, but that doesn't make the TLD "international".

Europe has jurisdiction over .eu, .fr, .de, and other TLDs. The US has jurisdiction over .com, .edu, .org, ..net and a few others.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is .us

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Ltap]

Of course, the USA having control over general domains like .edu could be debated -- do they have the right to provide American universities with a TLD, then force non-American universities to fend for themselves? Why do they have a similar monopoly over domains like .gov? Why, indeed, do domains like gov exist? A better approach would be *.gov.us for US government sites. The only arguments I have ever heard are "because they got there first" and "because they can", neither of which are remotely valid.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[sulimma]

What is your source for your statement?

According to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.com, .com is intended for "Commercial entities (worldwide)".

RFC 920 make no reference to .com beeing used by us entities. Instead a domain .us is intend for that:
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc920#page-2

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

The US created the original TLD system, and ".COM" was only for companies with DARPA-related business, which effectively meant a subset of US companies. Eventually, the US dropped those restrictions and more companies started registering. Because the US is laissez-faire about it, it also allowed foreign companies to register. Then, eventually, other nations got their act together and created their own TLDs.

The .COM TLD is managed by the US according to US rules because the US created it. The fact that it is more lenient about managing it than (say) the EU is about the .EU domain doesn't mean that other countries all of a sudden have acquired a right to tell the US how to run .COM. If you don't like the way the US runs it, use a different TLD.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

Why do they have a similar monopoly over domains like .gov? Why, indeed, do domains like gov exist?

Different registrars were created in different countries over time for different TLDs. The COM/EDU/GOV/ORG TLDs have always been US administered. Everybody who signed up under one of those TLDs knew whose jurisdiction and control it fell under. If you didn't want US jurisdiction or control, you should have signed up somewhere else. Changing the jurisdiction after the fact is not acceptable (and probably legally not even possible).

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

The ".com" domain is the domain for US [citation needed] commercial entities; there is no other. Because the US is fairly laissez-faire about it, a lot of foreign registrants have been able to get .com domains, but that doesn't make the TLD "international".

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, (unsurprisingly) the us domain is .us .

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Fluffeh]

The ".com" domain is the domain for US commercial entities; there is no other. Because the US is fairly laissez-faire about it, a lot of foreign registrants have been able to get .com domains, but that doesn't make the TLD "international".

Europe has jurisdiction over .eu, .fr, .de, and other TLDs. The US has jurisdiction over .com, .edu, .org, ..net and a few others.

Why on earth is this +4 Insightful? This is the sort of information that most /.'ers mock Fox News for. Seriously.

The TLD for the US is *gasp* .us - unsurprisingly similar to just about any other TLD suffix denoting a particular country. Spend 5 seconds researching something before modding this rubbish up.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

The ".com" domain is the domain for US commercial entities; there is no other. Because the US is fairly laissez-faire about it, a lot of foreign registrants have been able to get .com domains, but that doesn't make the TLD "international".

Europe has jurisdiction over .eu, .fr, .de, and other TLDs. The US has jurisdiction over .com, .edu, .org, ..net and a few others.

You mean other than .co.us ?

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[rohan972]

The ".com" domain is the domain for US commercial entities; there is no other.

Except for this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us

Because the US is fairly laissez-faire about it, a lot of foreign registrants have been able to get .com domains, but that doesn't make the TLD "international".

Well it was supposed to be international, that's why you got your own country code. It seems that it is so uncommon for your countrymen to use your country code that you are even unaware it exists. Now you blame "foreign registrants" for using YOUR TLD.

You Americans would be so funny if you didn't have such a big military.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

> The ".com" domain is the domain for US commercial entities; there is no other. .com.us

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean they've removed co.us which used to be the commerical top domain for US?

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[sulimma]

> The .COM TLD is managed by the US according to US rules because the US created it.
The US rule you are talking about is RFC920. RFC 920 is an official DARPA document: "This is an official policy statement of the IAB and the DARPA."

It explicitely has an international scope. It lays the rules for registering a second level domain in .com and does not restrict it to US companies.
While at that time almost all ARPANET nodes where in the US (European nodes have been part of the network since 1972), that does not mean that it was intended to stay that way.

Otherwise it would not have made much sense to specify .us and .de domains in RFC 920.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

and .us is for, what, exactly?
 
.com is intended for commercial entities worldwide. The US does have jurisdiction over it, for historical reasons. Until now, it has seemed that any other solution was potentially worse, so the situation has been allowed to continue. Now that the US has taken an active stance to fuck it up, a more international solution is called for.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[gl4ss]

.. doesn't the sopa include just blocking everything, .com or .not.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Anonymous Coward]

Europe has jurisdiction over .eu, .fr, .de, and other TLDs. The US^H^HVerisign has jurisdiction over .com, .edu, .org, ..net</q>
Fixed that for ya.
<q> and a few others.</q>

Like .us?

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[HopefulIntern]

I love my Montenegro TLD :)
"Can't touch this" dun, dun dun dun

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[bryan1945]

"Neither of which are remotely valid."
Al Gore would like a word with you.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

Well it was supposed to be international,

And it still is: foreign entities are welcome to register in it, subject to US laws and regulations (the domain was administered by the US DoD).

Except for this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us

The .US domain is effectively for oddball state-level entities. Difficult as it may be for you to comprehend, but the US doesn't necessarily work the same way Europe does.

You Americans would be so funny if you didn't have such a big military.

You're welcome to build your own big military. Until you do, however, we call the shots.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Ltap]

Regardless, it is unfairly US-centric.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

It is US-centric but there's nothing "unfair" about it, since the US created the technology and paid for it.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Ltap]

I hesitate to quote myself, but since you obviously didn't read it...

The only arguments I have ever heard are "because they got there first" and "because they can", neither of which are remotely valid.

The question we are talking about is moral rights, not capitalism. Regardless of what money the USA has paid for something, does it have the moral right to put itself on a pedestal online? I do not think so.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

It's "not putting itself on a pedestal", it is simply continuing to administer the domains it created, it paid for, and it owns. That is the morally right thing to do.

But it obviously annoys Europeans to no end that the US doesn't have to bow to European imperialism and arbitrariness anymore.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[rohan972]

You're welcome to build your own big military. Until you do, however, we call the shots.

Ha ha. I know, I'm Australian. Personally I think we should have our own nukes instead of relying on permanent US bases. I like us to have a good relationship with the us, but it would be best if we were friends who could look after ourselves. Troops permanently stationed in Australia should be loyal to our country, not yours.

I'm not convinced you can continue to pay for your military expansion and I don't think we should rely on you when, just like any other country, your first obligation is to yourselves. I think Jefferson had it right and both our countries should pay heed: "peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none."

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Ltap]

It doesn't matter if you pay for something -- sometimes, you just don't deserve it. What if I paid $1000 to be the UN secretary-general? Would that be fair? My point is that by having the US singled out as "special", we help to sustain a Web where the US controls a vast number of domain names (other than just *.us), and unfairly so. In the interests of treating countries fairly (that is, that countries like the USA don't get special privileges they have abused and will abuse again in the future), we should modernize certain TLDs. That is all.

PS: I'm not European.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

It doesn't matter if you pay for something -- sometimes, you just don't deserve it.

And sometimes you do, like when you invent something, build it, and then invite others to participate.

My point is that by having the US singled out as "special", we help to sustain a Web where the US controls a vast number of domain names (other than just *.us), and unfairly so.

The US is "singled out" because it invented, created, and implemented the Internet. It then allowed other countries to join in.

we help to sustain a Web where the US controls a vast number of domain names (other than just *.us)

Everybody who signed up for a .COM domain name knew that it was under US jurisdiction; they had lots of other choices available, but they chose a gTLD under US jurisdiction. Many did so deliberately because they wanted their domain names under US jurisdiction, protected by US free speech laws and removed from European and UN censorship. It was the US laws and regulations that made .COM so popular.

I would strongly object to having my .COM domains administered by the UN, the EU, or some international body. I do not want to be subject to European restrictions on free speech, European trademark law, or European intellectual property law, which are dangerously anti-democratic, protectionist, and anti-competitive.

and unfairly so. In the interests of treating countries fairly (that is, that countries like the USA don't get special privileges they have abused and will abuse again in the future), we should modernize certain TLDs. That is all.

What would be "unfair" is for the US to build a successful business under its laws, and then for other nations to come in an take it away under some pretext of "fairness" and "international law". That's the way European colonialism and imperialism used to work; no more, fortunately.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[Ltap]

The internet is not and should not be a business, and regardless of who "invented" it, it is now something that has become more international and egalitarian. Furthermore, you talk about European censorship or about the UN? What about US censorship? While it is difficult to generalize about Europe, certain parts (Denmark, Sweden, etc.) are more democratic than the USA. Finally, anti-competitive? TLDs by their nature are monopolistic -- trying to run a TLD for-profit simply leads to high domain name prices... but this not about money, this is about fairness. If you mean that intellectual property and trademark law are bad, then I agree -- but I would advise you to look at which country is strong-arming other countries into signing international treaties related to it. Hint: it isn't a European country.

My point is simply that you seem to be under the impression that the USA should have a right to operate the way it does, that the Web is about business, or that anyone should flout or manipulate international law or ignore what is fair and right just to make money.

Finally -- imperialism? Colonialism? The USA is the only country selfishly squatting on general-subject TLDs like .org... that seems pretty imperialist to me.

Re:they are not "international domain names"

[t2t10]

My point is simply that you seem to be under the impression that the USA should have a right to operate the way it does, that the Web is about business, or that anyone should flout or manipulate international law or ignore what is fair and right just to make money. Finally -- imperialism? Colonialism? The USA is the only country selfishly squatting on general-subject TLDs like .org... that seems pretty imperialist to me.

I am under the impression that I and everybody else who registered a .COM domain signed up for a domain administered under US law. That is why .COM was successful. And I strongly oppose changing that. It's a simple as that.

Censorship

[Anonymous Coward]

As a US Citizen and as a person living in Mel Watt district I particularly disagree with how he supposedly represents me. I think the US government has completely forgotten who they are suppose to represent. There is no way that the American people stand behind what they are trying to do. I apologize to the whole International community for these attempts to to follow the bidding of special interests(Movie & RIAA).

Hooray!

[Anonymous Coward]

Hooray for the EU - because our government sure won't listen to us on this!

Did they mispeak?

[sgt scrub]

No country should have the ability to simply take over international domain names, and surely the US would feel the same if this plan was put in motion by a foreign country.

Shouldn't this read, "No company should have the ability..."?

Old Hat

[andersh]

I guess it's pointless to argue with people like you, you might be a little bit upset perhaps, but your claims are all more or less unfounded.

The EU is more than capable in many respects, however it currently lacks a [full] military arm [which will eventually replace NATO]. The Eurocorps is changing that.

The EU has taken charge of military missions using European national forces in Europe, Africa and not least the naval operations outside Somalia in the Indian Ocean. I would love to see [my]Europe leave NATO, never again aiding the US

To accuse Europe of not being capable is both laughable and imprecise, there is no "Europe" as such to accuse. We will see in the future however as the EU consolidates. NATO has been the foundation of both American and European operations. You fight your wars with our help, not just the other way around. Despite your [increasingly invalid] superiority complex and extreme nationalism, you're not actually protecting Europeans at all, just your own interests. How exactly does the Ramstein Air Base protect Germany? Why are Europeans fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan?!

It's ironic that you dare to speak about nationalism and facism, your country is the prime representative of both at this point in time! Oh, and you're awfully good at both genocides and apartheid. Your own history is far from respectable. And if we're to be blamed for past mistakes we also take full credit for Democracy, Magna Carta and the Republic!

The NATO committments you referred to are not exactly in our best interest. What possible reason do we have for spending a fixed percentage on non-essentials? The Cold War is over, that threat has passed, the need for arms has changed for Europe. The US uses its arms for other less admirable goals than promoting peace!

Why should we care about your strategic and economic goals? Defending Israel and other dicators (from Egypt to Saudi Arabia)! We should use our[European] armed forces and funds on other fronts such as border patrols, anti-terrorism and rapid reaction forces.

Europe (EU) is at peace for now, but our neighbors are not (see the Middle East, ex-Soviets and Africa). That's what we should care about!

This is not so-called anti-Americanism, that passed decades ago. The US isn't even remotely on the agenda in Europe in general. Why would we hate you? The EU is actually a lot more "hated" by people than your irrelevant foreign government. I think you're an old man, stuck in the past.

The Libyan operation is testament to Europe's growing self-confidence and ability. The French lead those attacks on Libya, joined by the British, before the US even acted! That's despite the lack of NATO and EU support.

At least you are correct when you claimed that what's going on is exactly what some European nations did in the past; playing The Great Game. The empires of Britain, Spain and France fell, and the American empire will also fall...

Re:Old Hat

[euroq]

The empires of Britain, Spain and France fell, and the American empire will also fall...

I have no comment on the rest of your post, except for this statement. The current American society is not an empire, it is just a sole superpower. Simplistically, an empire is a government which controls large territories/peoples outside of its sovereign home. Sure, there's places like Guam and Puerto Rico, but all of those territories which are not the 50 states and DC are paltry in population and land compared to the states. One could also argue about other types of foreign intrusions such as "cultural dominance" but that sure as hell doesn't compare to the British or Spanish empires.

Re:Old Hat

[Xest]

The style of control has changed that's all, whilst the British would often install one of their own at the top or someone extremely biased towards them, America now just uses the latter option entirely - it replaces leaders it doesn't like, with leaders it does such that they will adhere to US policy and US interests even if it's against the better interests of the nation in question.

It uses softer pressures such as "We wont trade with you unless you do what we want", or "We'll give you funding for arms if you follow our will".

They still control these countries like every other empire has, they just don't own them.

Re:Old Hat

[Patch86]

The United States, just including the 50 core states, is as big and powerful as most of the world's old colonial empires. The Chinese empire contained few people other than Chinese people, in geographical China. Ditto the Japanese empire.

Empire is an emotive word (and it's inaccurate, as the US is not ruled by an emperor), but his basic sentiment (that all of the world's most powerful nation states fell eventually) is more or less applicable to the US as much as anyone.

Just remember the slogan of the winner...

[argStyopa]

.... "CHANGE".

Feeling it yet?

Re:Just remember the slogan of the winner...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you saying there hasn't been any change? Well, change for the worse is also a change... isn't it?

Re:Just remember the slogan of the winner...

[quacking duck]

Not to defend Obama or Democrats, but in a de facto 2-party system where there isn't a sufficiently strong 3rd choice (like there is in Canada for example), they were the better choice. At the time. And looking at the candidates so far for the Republican nomination for 2012, Obama and Democrats might still be the better choice next year.

Re:Just remember the slogan of the winner...

[ToddInSF]

"No his mind is not for rent To any god or government Always hopeful, yet discontent He knows changes aren't permanent But change is"

Re:Just remember the slogan of the winner...

[StikyPad]

Sure am. And to be honest, even though the impetus was unpleasant and old ones are ruined, changing my shorts was long overdue. Thanks, government, for knowing what's best for me and how to get me to do it.

Re:Just remember the slogan of the winner...

[WiiVault]

Obama is bad, but to equate him the the previous dumbass-in-chief is lunacy.

Team America

[muirnin]

Who knew "Team America" had an IT Department?

Level the Playing Field

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a solution that prevents the dilution by Corporations, Unions, and the 1% from hi-jacking the political process.
We all know that money DOES influence the political process, we just need to level the playing field some.

U.S. Department of Labor calculates the actual minimum wage [AMW] people make.
For this example, let's assume AMW is $17.00 for 2009.

Any individual US Citizen may contribute "100 x AMW" to any political representative or campaign.

That is a maximum of $1700, for Warren Buffett or a Walmart employee.

For most other situations...

U.S. Department of Health & Human Services calculates the poverty line, $22,050 for 2009.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service collects wage taxes from businesses and corporations.
With a little work, the IRS could determine how many tax paying employes are paid above the poverty line by a specific entity.
We'll call the number of Workers Above the Poverty Line [WAPL]

Any Business, Corporation, even Foreign Country may contribute "AMW x WAPL" to any political representative or campaign.
Do not have any U.S. employees, you can't contribute a penny.

A large Corporation of 50,000 WAPL employees could theoretically use $850,000 to influence some political outcome, but it only takes 500 individual US Citizens to counter that influence.

Some exceptions...

AARP, NRA, Unions, Non-Profits, and other type of member organizations should be a percentage multiplied by AMW -or- a percentage of member donations.

-
Penlites:

1. Any political representative or campaign that (mistakenly) accepts more then the allowed amount MUST contribute the overpayment ONLY to the U. S. Office of Personnel Management Combined Federal Campaign. Sorry, can't funnel the money to a charity run by someone's second cousin.

2. Any individual -or- entity that violates the rules is barred from making ANY political contributions for two (2) years. (three strikes?)

--

This should force the politicians to promote the general Welfare.

End of freedom begining of free doom

[luk3Z]

Freedom in US is ending.

Rich

[Anonymous Coward]

This is more than a bit rich coming from the EU. These are the people that can't even be honest with the citizens of the countries they are dismantling for their super state project about their intentions. Trade union my arse.

British freedom, NOW!!

And you are any different?

[SmallFurryCreature]

First off, Jesus does not exist and if he did exist, do you think a guy nailed to a cross would cry for Americans who pollute the world and consume its resources and are to stupid to vote for Bush or anyone not Bush?

Thousands die of hunger and some beard in the sky is supposed to care for you?

Re:And you are any different?

[ciderbrew]

I've never had a problem with idea that 2000 years ago a hippy Arab black guy called Jesus was walking around telling people to stop being a bunch of cunts to one another. I even agree with most of the stuff he thought made you a chilled out cool dude. I happy to believe that the Romans didn't like him much and nailed him up for it too. It's just the other bits that seem far far-fetched.

Re:And you are any different?

[Phoghat]

First off, Jesus does not exist and if he did exist, do you think a guy nailed to a cross would cry for Americans who pollute the world and consume its resources and are to stupid to vote for Bush or anyone not Bush?

First off, you are correct in saying that "Jesus does not exist", however, he did at one time as any historian familiar with Rome could easily tell you, as his name does appear in historical records. Secondly, although I am not a Grammar Nazi (but I play one on TV) the word "to" as you use it is actually spelled "too". And lastly, the quote is from the Bible, New Testament, but was also used as the closing line in an 1987 movie called "Hellraiser", with which you either may or may not be familiar, and because of the tone of your reply to my post, are probably too young to have seen, and definitely too young to watch now that you know about it, and in which context I used it here.

For further testimony, read the reply to your reply, written by a certain ciderbrew. Personally, I can dig it.

PS read and heed my sig

Re:And you are any different?

[AmiMoJo]

He definitely existed because there are Roman records of his execution. Of course he was just an ordinary man, but he did live and was executed.

Re:And you are any different?

[ianare]

Jesus was a Jew ... not an Arab, and not black. Also, there is no such thing as an 'Arab black', it's like saying a 'Han Chinese white'.

Re:And you are any different?

[ciderbrew]

Jesus was Han Chinese white?

Re:And you are any different?

[hazah]

He does not actually appear in any record. In the record you will find that there were many Jesuses and many (not all named Jesus) claiming to be the messiah. As for the biblical Jesus, he is a combination of many different myths based in Mesopotamia and Egypt, presented to the population of Alexandria in a political effort to unify the people under a single common religion.

Re:And you are any different?

[hazah]

There is nothing in those records to say that it was the same individual, regardless of actual deistic position. Many individuals carried the name Jesus at that time, and many individuals claimed that they were a messiah. There is simply not enough evidence to support the connection or to explain away the case for Christianity being a rehashing of older mythologies that were combined in the melting pot of cultures that was Alexandria.

Re:And you are any different?

[shaitand]

The Jewish people are originally from Africa/Ethiopia and black as black can be. A small minority of them migrated to the area known as modern day Israel where they married and converted Arabs to their faith. By the time of Jesus the Jews in Israel shared far more physical traits with Arabs than with their original African origin. So yeah, he was an Arab black guy being descended from both.

Re:And you are any different?

[Lord Balto]

http://neros.lordbalto.com/ChapterTwelve.htm It really isn't rocket science.

Re:And you are any different?

[mcgrew]

do you think a guy nailed to a cross would cry for Americans who pollute the world and consume its resources and are to stupid to vote for Bush or anyone not Bush?

Yes, if you understand why he let himself be nailed to that cross. You're criticising something you don't understand.

Re:And you are any different?

[mcgrew]

He wasn't an Arab, he was a Jew -- and I'm pretty sure Arabs and Jews don't get along too well. And his message was far more than simply "don't be a prick".

And the story goes that the Romans didn't want to execute him, but did it anyway because they were afraid of the Jews revolting. Go rent "Passion of the Christ", it's pretty accurate (and a damned good, well made movie). Bloody as hell, R rated, makes people cry.

After surviving a head on car wreck diong 50 and hitting a 3/4 ton pickup truck doing 70 head on, without a seat belt, and walking away from the twisted metal that you couldn't tell what kind of car it had been (and as a result experiencing what an athiest would call a hallucination), I have no problem at all believing it. And my experience was far weirder than I've penned here. It was truly a "Daniel in the lion's den" type of miracle.

Once you've seen an elephant, you'll never disbelieve the existance of elephants again.

Re:And you are any different?

[AmiMoJo]

Sure, I'm not suggesting that 90% of what was written about his isn't bullshit ripped off from other religions and myths of the day. My point is only that there was a guy called Jesus who was executed for that particular crime by the Romans.

Re:And you are any different?

[Anonymous Coward]

did He shoot first?

Re:And you are any different?

[hazah]

My point is it wasn't "one guy". As in, there could have been Jesus the thief, Jesus the traitor, Jesus the adulterer, Jesus the (whatever crime he committed), all potentially being executed on the same day.

The US froze IP addresses, and RIPE NCC complied

[Anonymous Coward]

Although it's probably too late to get this comment prominent - just this month a US judge ordered IPv4 assets frozen.

And the Dutch police happily sent a police order to the RIPE NCC, the registry in charge of internet numbers in Europe, which immediately followed it.

I'd go to war

[Anonymous Coward]

If US continues with this practice and this SOPA thing becomes a law, well,
I'm prepared to go to war against US,
now, I don't like terrorism, but who actually is a terrorist ???

Thank you, EU

[Anonymous Coward]

Someone had to stand up and say NO to unreasonable laws. Kudos!

Blah...

[Anonymous Coward]

Another "let's bash the U.S. about things we don't even get included in the meetings of and pretend to be savants about" thread... Yawn.

Do something

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Geeky People of the World. Do something. Occupy something. At the very least join Avaaz, support the ACLU, or donate to Democracy Now. Without a free internet there will be no possibility for change. The time for action is no- even a symbolic one.

LOL wut

[Anonymous Coward]

...Europe, they seem to have a pretty good grip on freedoms which are eroding in USA...

LOL Yeah like jury trial (only in Ireland + UK), freedom of speech, an elected head of state, and judicial review (not in UK).

The people have freedom of speech. Speech will be regulated by law.

LOL There are typically like 10-30 exceptions to the "freedom of speech", unlike America's narrow 3-10.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

>like not locking up such large proportions of poor darker skinned people

lol that's because europe doesn't have darker skinned people, they killed them all in 20th century and haven't let any more in. when the a place becomes less than 50% white, THEN come back and be like "oh theres less prisoners/crime in this place"...

california, for instance, is only like 40-50% european.

>authoritarian privatized

lol privatization is a PROBLEM BECAUSE GOVERNMENT is giving all the land and resources to the few ("titles"). the SOLUTION IS NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.

government healthcare is a tax. cant pay taxes in europe? go to prison. they solve the healthcare problem by coercion and fear for your life. and you wonder why europe is always at war? sounds like a stressful place.

Re:lol

[migla]

>like not locking up such large proportions of poor darker skinned people

lol that's because europe doesn't have darker skinned people, they killed them all in 20th century and haven't let any more in. when the a place becomes less than 50% white, THEN come back and be like "oh theres less prisoners/crime in this place"...

california, for instance, is only like 40-50% european.

Great for California. According to Wikipedia, 9,2 % of the population in Sweden was *born* outside of the EU.

In my neighbourhood more than 80 % are first or second generation immigrants. Still not seeing the misery and crime and incarceration I hear you have over there in the good old US of A.

But it's true we let too few people in. I mean, what the fuck gives anyone the right to control the place from where their ancestors once upon a time displaced some other people (like the Swedes and Finns once did with the Sami, for example) where their parents happened to initiate a chemical reaction probably because they felt an urge to fuck.

Some European countries are worse jerks than others about immigration, but I don't think the US stands out that much as an immigration friendly land in the world. That myth is still perpetuated, though.

I'm not going to try to dig up any numbers for this feeding, but I have a feeling the US locks up disproportionately many coloured people. If I'm wrong about that, it is at least clear that the so-called land of the free locks up disproportionately many people compared to other democratic countries.

I'm not saying Europe is great, just that it's still a bit less fucked up than the US.

Institutional/systemic racism keep darker people poorer in the white mans land and poor people often find themselves being criminals in the rich mans land.

>authoritarian privatized

lol privatization is a PROBLEM BECAUSE GOVERNMENT is giving all the land and resources to the few ("titles"). the SOLUTION IS NOT MORE GOVERNMENT.

I'll agree that government, in the forms we have it, isn't great. I think corporate power is worse, though. Corporations aren't democratic. Government can be, sometimes. Often they pander the corporations, though.

government healthcare is a tax. cant pay taxes in europe? go to prison. they solve the healthcare problem by coercion and fear for your life. and you wonder why europe is always at war? sounds like a stressful place.

You don't go to prison if you can't pay taxes. If you're so poor that you can't pay taxes you still get free healthcare, medicine, education and some money.

And war? Name the US presidents that haven't gone to war. Barring the recent actions in Afghanistan and Libya, Sweden, for example, hasn't been to war since 1814.

Of course, nowadays we want to go in shoulder to shoulder with the Beacons of Liberty/Great Satan (depending on who you ask) and bomb peace into poor darker people in faraway lands.