Slashdot Mirror


Internet Defense League: A Bat Signal For the Internet

mikejuk writes "Following the successful defense of the Internet against SOPA, website owners are being invited to sign up to a project that will enable them to participate in future protest campaign, the Internet Defense League. The banner logo for the 'bat-signal' site is a cat, a reference to Ethan Zuckerman's cute cat theory of digital activism. The idea is that sites would respond to the call to "defend the Internet" by joining a group blackout or getting users to sign petitions. From the article: 'Website owners can sign up on the IDL website to add a bit of code to their sites (or receive code by email at the time of a campaign) that can be triggered in the case of a crisis like SOPA. This would add an "activist call-to-action" to all participating sites - such as a banner asking users to sign petitions, or in extreme cases blackout the site, as proved effective in the SOPA/PIPA protest of January 2012.'"

22 of 101 comments (clear)

  1. Unfortunate choice of name... by EdgePenguin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In the UK this is going to be reminiscent, for a lot of people, of the English Defence League - a bunch of neo-nazi football hooligans who stage rallies against 'Islamists' in English town centres, as a shallow pretext to harass and attack people with dark skin.

    1. Re:Unfortunate choice of name... by penix1 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Naming conventions aside, petition campaigns, especially form petition types have never worked in the past. They require the receiving party to actually give a shit about the petitions and set aside their own self interest and those of the ones funding them. Blackouts and demonstrations of the proposed nasty are far more effective. And it needs to be the big boys doing it first. That would be Google, Facebook, Twitter and Wikipedia. that is what stopped SOPA. Not some silly form sent to individual representatives. It prompted Joe Blow to actually call and write DIRECTLY to their reps expressing in their own words how they feel. That is way more effective than getting the same form over and over again. And even then, there will be politicians that won't set aside that self interest.

      --
      This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
    2. Re:Unfortunate choice of name... by Mashiki · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Would those be the same islamists who were spitting on people, harassing women, and posting their "anti-gay/anti-homosexual/anti-western stuff" along with general hate speech, as defined by UK law? I'm just curious, I mean the UK does seem to have a serious problem with islamists, captain hook(Abu Hamza al-Masri) comes to mind, but there are plenty of others and plenty more of them on the government welfare dole too.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Unfortunate choice of name... by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, there's assholes on all extremes of the social/political/religious spectrums (sprectra, spectri?).
      The fact that there's asssholes on the other extreme doesn't make you less of an asshole.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:Unfortunate choice of name... by EdgePenguin · · Score: 2

      The EDL don't target Abu Hamza (whose level of physical threat can be assessed based on the fact he blew off both his hands through his inept bomb making attempts) - they target law-abiding UK citizens who happen to look different, wear different clothes, or generally look at the fucking psychos in the EDL the wrong way.

  2. needs technical measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The internet really needs better built in, automatic, technical measures to protect anonymity and protect against censorship.

    End to end encryption as standard for everything. Censorship resistant technologies.

    We can try to defend it against legal attacks, but those attacks only have to succeed ONCE, where the defence has to succeed EVERY time. I don't know exactly how and of course there will be many problems to solve, but I think technical measures are the only thing that can protect the internet in the long run. We must ensure that politicians and legal systems simply do not have the ability to damage it. of course that cannot be done in a perfect way, but that doesn't mean that moving in that direction is without use.

    1. Re:needs technical measures by John+Hasler · · Score: 2

      The internet really needs better built in, automatic, technical measures to protect anonymity and protect against censorship.

      No technical measure can protect against men with guns, The ISPs must cooperate with the governments. They have no choice.

      End to end encryption as standard for everything. Censorship resistant technologies.

      There is no resisting rubber-hose decryption.

      We can try to defend it against legal attacks, but those attacks only have to succeed ONCE, where the defence has to succeed EVERY time.

      Laws can be repealed.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
    2. Re:needs technical measures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Any time you move to central control, you have the risk that that control can be used for purposes like censorship or manipulation of public opinion by choosing what people are presented with. The internet started off with decentralized control and it could have kept going in that direction. It could have become the strongest force against thought-police and censorship that the world has ever known. Unfortunately, that didn't last long because central control is exactly what people want. They WANT a single site like Facebook to control all their communications, and basically tell them what they should do and not do. They want Apple to protect them from the big bad internet by controlling what software they are permitted to run on their own computers. People WANT that. Censorship is a feature to them, not a bug.

      When people think it's a good idea to give a private for-profit company like Facebook the ability to snoop and control their communications, good luck getting anybody to care about abstract concepts like "freedom".

  3. Um, No? by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Website owners can sign up on the IDL website to add a bit of code to their sites (or receive code by email at the time of a campaign) that can be triggered in the case of a crisis like SOPA. This would add an "activist call-to-action" to all participating sites - such as a banner asking users to sign petitions, or in extreme cases blackout the site, as proved effective in the SOPA/PIPA protest of January 2012.

    Are they nuts? I don't want any outside site having control over my clients' sites. If they are hacked this would give the hackers a quick way to affect any site that signs up with them.

    Well intentioned (I hope), but count me out.

    1. Re:Um, No? by iamhassi · · Score: 2

      Just automatically trigger a banner or something, don't make this more difficult than it has to be.

      or better, send me an email with a link I have to click to activate the banner, because honestly, you might be protesting something someday that I dont wanna protest. Yes, SOPA bad, and Internet Defense League sounds frickin awesome (do we get t-shirts or costumes?!?) but i don't know who's going to be eventually running it, Evil Mega Corp might take over the IDL and trigger the banner for Evil purposes, so while I'd like to add the code just one time and leave it there, I'd also like to be given the option to activate the banner when I want to.

      We have the code, we can rebuild it

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  4. At least... by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    it isn't called "League of the Extraordinary Websites".

  5. I would have Chosen the Acronym "LOSIAYM" by RobotRunAmok · · Score: 2

    for "League of Self-Important Angry Young Men."

    And thanks, I'll pass...

    1. Re:I would have Chosen the Acronym "LOSIAYM" by McFadden · · Score: 2

      Yeah, those pesky angry young men... They do anything as long as it doesn't involve more than a couple of mouse clicks

      FTFY

  6. summary is wrong (surprise) by million_monkeys · · Score: 5, Informative

    Website owners can sign up on the IDL website to add a bit of code to their sites (or receive code by email at the time of a campaign) that can be triggered in the case of a crisis like SOPA. This would add an "activist call-to-action" to all participating sites - such as a banner asking users to sign petitions, or in extreme cases blackout the site, as proved effective in the SOPA/PIPA protest of January 2012.

    Are they nuts? I don't want any outside site having control over my clients' sites. If they are hacked this would give the hackers a quick way to affect any site that signs up with them. Well intentioned (I hope), but count me out.

    I think the summary is wrong about how the system is supposed to work. From the actual IDF site: "First, sign up. If you have a website, we'll send you sample alert code to get working in advance. The next time there's an emergency, we'll tell you and send new code. Then it's your decision to pull the trigger."

    Sounds like they give you a sample code in advance so you can make it fit with your site, then if something comes up, they send you a version specific to whatever the issue is. If you don't think it's important, you can just ignore it. If you do want to include a message, you can pop it on your site. And it shouldn't screw anything up because you've previously tested/customized the code for your site. That's slightly (completely?) different than the summary which implies they give you code allowing them to automatically add alerts to your site whenever they want.

    I'm still not convinced it's worthwhile, but it's not the "no way in hell I'm doing that" method that the summary describes

  7. misleading summary by Cyko_01 · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is not a piece of code that you put on your site and they flip the switch for you whenever they feel like it (although that is an option too if you really don't care). They basically send you an email about the current threat and YOU flip the switch if you want to participate. The code is just so that everybody's banners look the same.

  8. the internet does not live in the ether by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    cables can be cut, power can be switched off, frequencies can be jammed

    the health of the internet is merely a reflection of the health of society. so focus your efforts on the keeping society's attitude healthy. that's your best, and only defense, to keeping the internet truly free

    there is no such thing as a technical fix to a sociological problem

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:the internet does not live in the ether by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      cables can be cut, power can be switched off, frequencies can be jammed

      True, yes, but not without getting the masses up in arms.

      Right now, it's too abstract. "So WHAT if every single keystroke I type, every site I visit, is logged by my government? I'm not doing anything wrong!" Outside of a tiny minority, people don't care.

      But take away their internet by cutting the cable, and they WILL care. Governments generally can't do that. They CAN engage in censorship and widespread surveillance without getting the population up in arms though, which is why technical measures against those things are needed.

    2. Re:the internet does not live in the ether by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Maybe that's why Hitler lost

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  9. Blackouts? by kubernet3s · · Score: 2

    You know, not a single site I went to on "SOPA day" actually blacked out. Wikipedia put a lame ass banner frame that could be circumvented by pressing escape soon after the page loaded, and that was about the most aggressive I saw.

  10. I'm afraid that persistence wins by utkonos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And the internet will lose eventually.

    The problem boils down to attention span. The SOPA/PIPA protest was something new. The threat was very in-your-face. It was easy to get the internet to pay attention for these reasons. Congress has learned from that mistake. The new bills are all going to end in the same situation, but they will be smaller and sneakier. The internet has already expended its attention span. It will be impossible to muster the same protest again, unfortunately.

    1. Re:I'm afraid that persistence wins by ohnocitizen · · Score: 2

      A coordinated effort to rapidly identify and track sneakier efforts could get the word out. That alone would make this effort valuable. In fact, if there was simply a way to collect and display bills (and precisely who was behind them) - that would be pretty effective. They could even take a page from sites like ActBlue, and raise funds for primary and general election challengers to bill sponsors.

      Plus, part of the reason SOPA failed was a few big internet companies jumped in. So in addition to being sneaky, new censorship laws would have to avoid angering these relatively new economic powerhouses as well.

      All in all, with the right effort, I remain optimistic the fight is not a doomed one.

    2. Re:I'm afraid that persistence wins by guises · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's always a mistake to play a defensive game like this. It isn't enough to oppose bad laws, it's necessary to pass good ones that preclude further bad legislation. It's much harder to undermine a good law than it is to legislate something new.

      So, in other words, we need to identify something positive and back that, or write our own. I've heard some good things about the OPEN act - the *AAs oppose it, for one thing, that's a solid win. It hasn't had a whole lot of press though.