Slashdot Mirror


The Internet Archive Is Building a Canadian Copy To Protect Itself From Trump (theverge.com)

The Internet Archive, a digital library nonprofit that preserves billions of webpages for the historical record, is building a backup archive in Canada after the election of Donald Trump. The Verge adds: Today, it began collecting donations for the Internet Archive of Canada, intended to create a copy of the archive outside the United States. "On November 9th in America, we woke up to a new administration promising radical change," writes founder Brewster Kahle. "It was a firm reminder that institutions like ours, built for the long-term, need to design for change. For us, it means keeping our cultural materials safe, private and perpetually accessible. It means preparing for a web that may face greater restrictions. It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase."

590 comments

  1. Valid by TFlan91 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    With Trumps position on libel laws, smart move to project against legal action.

    Still need to project against the ever-in-the-news cyber vulnerabilities. In today's world, physical location only goes so far.

    1. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      not really more like sensationalized hogwash...

      If they claimed to be doing it for redundancy sake, then sure completely legitimate reason. To claim its because of trump, now your just grabbing for headlines and/or extra money.

    2. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that redundancy? In case Trump gets angry at some criticism and orders the web be scrubbed of all references to something? Of course if he does that, Canada might find negotiations over whatever deals at that time get more difficult as he'd probably use that same condition to erase something - he is petty enough for sure.

    3. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm firm believer in backups, so Awesome!

      But where were these concerns about "government surveillance" not going away when Pres. Obama was expanding them rather than ending them like he promised in his first campaign.

    4. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Informative

      He's elected president. Not dictator. He doesn't have the power to "scrub the web." Asinine people sensationalizing paranoia.

    5. Re:Valid by elrous0 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, I hear he's going to eat our babies, ban all birth-control, and put all Democrats into concentration camps too!!!!!!!

      DID I MENTION THAT I'M TOTALLY RATIONAL, and in no way just a sore loser who is freaking out like a petulant child over losing an election?!?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    6. Re:Valid by NatasRevol · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You sound a lot like the winner. Who's ranted against free speech, and freedom of the press. And that's just this week.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    7. Re: Valid by MouseR · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He's elected president. Not dictator.

      Someone needs to remind him during his discourses.

    8. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well you nailed the 'petulant child' part but you weren't being satirical.

    9. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      >The Internet Archive, a digital library nonprofit that preserves billions of webpages for the historical record, is building a backup archive in Canada
      Legitimate

      >after the election of Donald Trump.
      adding this is sensationalizing/money grab

    10. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like all those protesting and demanding recounts because they didn't even get participation trophies in this election?

    11. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The idea is sound, but if the backchannel actions following the Snowden disclosures are any indications, it will not be enough.
      In order to make an example out of Snowden, the US has (from only what we know publicly):
      - threatened crippling trade sanctions of Ecuador
      - downed and boarded the plane of the President of Boliva
      - threaten to withhold intelligence from Germany
      And this is over something as trivial as leaking a few top secret documents (Hillary's were more sensitive, and that's not even worth any charges). Now imagine if wikileaks or someone publicly identifies the origins of the object stapled to Trump's head that pretends to be his hair. That's a nuking offense for both wikileaks and archive.org. The extra-judicial pressure the US exerts to get it's way is too big for a US ally to stand up to (especially for "only one website")

      At this point they should probably start thinking about using an .onion site instead (if possible).

    12. Re: Valid by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      No point in trying to talk to them. They're all holed up in their safe spaces with their fingers in their ears right now.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    13. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the sore winner whining like petulant child about how he won the popular vote because millions of non-citizen have voted without having any proof of it (he probably saw a tweet or an article on infowars), sad.
      He also keep whining about how all the media are against him, so unfair.
      How does it feel vote for a fascist five years old ?

    14. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Problem is Trump doesn't know the difference. He has ZERO clue what the job (Trumps first real life job by the way) of President entails, it's responsibilities or capabilities. There are millions of 5th graders in America who have more politician and global knowledge that this wind bag douche TV personality real estate swindler who has been handed EVERYTHING to him and has never had to work or KNOW anything in his entire life.

      I just hope the Presidential advisors do a good job of running the country for the next 4 years because it sure as hell won't be Trump at the real helm. He'll only be at the helm for photo ops and to complain about the media and everyone bashing on his utter incompetence. Whining like a little 5 year old about everyone picking on him.

    15. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Roosevelt didn't have the power to send American citizens of Japanese-decent to internment camps.

      Honestly, even if Trump wasn't elected, this is still a very good idea. The Internet Archive is one of the most important sources of information ever created. I think we should put a copy of it on every continent at the very least.

    16. Re:Valid by number6x · · Score: 1

      How does it feel vote for a fascist five years old ?

      I'm not sure how it feels. I voted for the pot smoking heart attack victim. Good old 'Governor Veto'.

    17. Re: Valid by infolation · · Score: 0

      He doesn't have the power to "scrub the web."

      He doesn't need to 'scrub the web', he can just 'build a wall' around the offending material to prevent the wrong people from accessing it. "I'm very good at this, it's called construction, it's what I do."

      In this case, the construction would be taking a leaf out of Russia's book and enlisting the help of Huawei to build his 'wall' for him.

    18. Re:Valid by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      you know for how "crazy" trump supporters sounded pre election there sure seems to be an uptick in crazy since the election from the other side

      isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??, and didnt the UK just institute draconian surveillance laws???

      my guess is this is nothing more than them using the outrage by people to get more funding at the expense of clickbait headlines

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    19. Re: Valid by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Insightful

      how in the hell does a statement claiming this is trumps first real job get modded up??

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    20. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ahaha. You are comparing Trump's Mexican wall with The Great Firewall of China. Hahahaha. I see what you did there.

    21. Re: Valid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0, Troll

      He's elected president. Not dictator.

      He believes he can walk on water and chew gum at the same time.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    22. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that the same thing? If the resource is effectively removed from access it's no longer on the web, just easier to take out the whole archive than a single page.

    23. Re:Valid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

      But where were these concerns about "government surveillance" not going away when Pres. Obama was expanding them,

      To be fair, Obama got a break because he wasn't certifiably nutso. That was our mistake: believing a minority of the American people wouldn't next elect someone who believes you should take away someone's citizenship for exercising their First Amendment rights.

      https://twitter.com/realDonald...

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    24. Re:Valid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      I'm not sure how it feels. I voted for the pot smoking heart attack victim. Good old 'Governor Veto'.

      Veto Corleone.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    25. Re:Valid by grcumb · · Score: 1

      With Trumps position on libel laws, smart move to project against legal action.

      Plus, Canada welcomes refugees! :D

      --
      Crumb's Corollary: Never bring a knife to a bun fight.
    26. Re: Valid by desdinova+216 · · Score: 2

      even Trump has made comments about fraud in the election, and with as close as the margin was in some of the states, I would think a recount would be automatic if the margin of victory was 1% or less

    27. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What safe space? Do you mean the Broadway theater?

    28. Re:Valid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1, Informative

      isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??

      No, not really. It's a complicated mess of tradition and convenience, but Canada could tell Queen Elizabeth to go blow and there would be no consequences. In the rare occasions where she acts on anything (and I mean rare), she has to follow a council of Canadians.

      Saying the Queen technically rules Canada is like saying God technically rules the US. It's easy to disprove.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    29. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The queen is technically the head of state, but laws and the constitution are independent.

    30. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know for how "crazy" trump supporters sounded pre election there sure seems to be an uptick in crazy since the election from the other side

      No, the uptick in crazy is from Trump himself.

      isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??, and didnt the UK just institute draconian surveillance laws???

      Elizabeth II is "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom, Canada and Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith" in Canadia, but the Canadians don't seem to think she's in charge (and the Québécois don't seem to think they're Canadian)

      my guess is this is nothing more than them using the outrage by people to get more funding at the expense of clickbait headlines

    31. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??"
      Are you serious?

      and didnt the UK just institute draconian surveillance laws???"
      What does this have to do with Canada?"

      my guess is this is nothing more than them using the outrage by people to get more funding at the expense of clickbait headlines"
      Your guess is very wrong. You should do less thinking and more reading.
      Start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_the_United_Kingdom

    32. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Japanese citizens probably never thought they'd be locked up in camps either.

    33. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Trump will be more of a sock-puppet for the right-wing extremist and Demonionist Republicans than anything else. People like Trump can't exist on their own, they only succeed at anything because they surround themselves with competent people who know how to get things done. In the case of the Office of the POTUS, he's surrounding himself with right-wing extremists, has a Dominionist for a Vice President, and is planning on nominating right-wing extremist conservative SCOTUS judges. One can expect this pattern to continue throughout all the appointments he's going to make. These people he's appointing are the ones who will do the most damage to civil liberties, civil rights, human rights, privacy rights, and whatever other positive social progress has been made over the last 50 to 70 years, and like most politicians, these don't even understand the Internet, not really, but they're more than willing to take a chainsaw to the way it works if they think it doesn't fit in with their agenda or their fucked-up, 1940's/1950's vision for America. Also, ironically enough, Trump voices publicly how he wants to tear down the establishment, but meanwhile he's already showing signs of cronyism and pro-corporate/anti-consumer policy. Need I also remind you that he's a very visible representative of 'The 1%'? I and many others have no reason to believe he'll do anything other than make the 1% richer and to Hell with the 99% -- so long as they're cooking his meals, cleaning his house, cleaning his toilets, and otherwise keeping their place. The only real hope the 51% of us who did NOT vote for Trump have, is that the moderate and conservative Republicans in the House and the Senate, in concert with the Democrats, can maintain enough balance and sanity, that we won't get literally dragged back to the 1940's/1950's socially-speaking.

      Asinine people sensationalizing paranoia

      Yeah, sure thing buddy, because Trump and his supporters NEVER do that themselves, do they? Also: Trump apologists. I'd wager at least half of who voted for Trump held their noses as they did it, and said a silent prayer to whatever god(s) they believe in, that he mellowed out and didn't completely borque everything over the next 4 years.

    34. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dad can do that!

    35. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ..is that the moderate and conservative Republicans in the House and the Senate

      Whoops, I mistyped that; I meant to say:

      ..is that the moderate and LIBERAL Republicans in the House and the Senate

    36. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      [different AC]
      He specifically said he wanted to "open up libel laws" so he could sue and win against reporters and the media, in obvious defiance of the 1st amendment. Yes, it would be completely against the law unless he amended the constitution, and other politicians that respect the law would hopefully oppose his wishes. Thus no problem? The president does have limitations, but when Trump is channelling Nixon by saying things like "the president can't have a conflict of interest", you have to wonder whether he's going to actually respect those limits.

      Paranoia, you say? Yeah, I guess it is that until he actually attempts to do something illegal, but I would make the case that when someone who is the president-elect says he *wants* to do things that are illegal, then that's something to speak up about before it happens rather than waiting to see if such craziness actually unfolds. Fact is, we have no idea just how far this guy is willing to go in defiance of the law because he's never been a politician. We don't have a record to compare to with regards to the law other than the thousands of lawsuits his businesses have accumulated, including absolute farces like Trump "University" which was enough of a slam dunk as a bogus operation that he settled it for millions even though he said he never would.

      Besides, having a backup is generally a good idea anyway.

    37. Re: Valid by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Nobody said he is going to "scrub the internet". The only one sensationalizing is you. They have a valid concern that their servers may be seized. If you don't think he might use his power and influence to do so then you haven't been paying attention to the Hitler Wannabe douchebag.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    38. Re: Valid by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      You are forgetting about all the rights and restrictions that Obama did away with.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    39. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Wrong. The Queen is Canada's head of state. And she rules with Divine Authority meaning God IS the ruler of Canada. It's right in the preamble of our Constitution. I took an oath to that withered old clam when I joined the Canadian Armed Forces. I didn't take one to the PM or Canada. Get your facts straight.

    40. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Roosevelt didn't have the power to send American citizens of Japanese-decent to internment camps.

      Of course he did. The Supreme Court said so in Korematsu v. United States and Hirabayashi v. United States.

    41. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      By the fact that Hillary supporters have gone far out of their way to control the narrative and scream about how evil Trump supposedly is compared to her record of criminal incompetence and just plain crime.

      The redundancy of the archive is a great thing and if it was inspired by Trump I consider it a benefit of his presidency before he even took office. My only question is why this wasn't done before if they have the resources.

    42. Re: Valid by dywolf · · Score: 1

      as if that ever stopped any autocrat.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    43. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "With Trumps position on libel laws, "

      There ain't no such thing, there's a defamation law, but that's about it.

    44. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Obama seemed like he was trying be be a dictator.

    45. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering he squashed Hillary despite the insane odds I'd say he qualifies as a miracle worker just like that other guy who could walk on water.

    46. Re:Valid by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      It's funny how people are suddenly doing good or useful things just to spite Trump. They never managed to them beforehand though.

      Hopefully they will save some of this non-apathy for the next guy from the other party.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    47. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I agree with that.

    48. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He's going to get pretty wet if he tries. And he'll have gum in his hair.

    49. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      He would have loved to be one, he just sucked at his job too much.

    50. Re: Valid by fisted · · Score: 1

      began collecting donations

      why [wasn't this] done before if they have the resources.

      Does that sound like they "have the resources"?

    51. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I think any single one of the crowd of Republicans that ran for the nomination could have beaten Hilliary. How the Democrats could have been so stupid as to run someone with that much baggage is beyond me. She was under an FBI investigation during the primaries and all the Benghazi crap etc. She was sure to have massive problems in an election where even a huge number of the people that voted for her thought she was a crook and a liar. It was like she had something on the DNC or something where they had to support her. It was crazy. My favorite video clip was the one where a Democrat in Florida running for some office was talking to a room full of Democratic supporters. Democrats now! Who when he said that Hillary was honest the room fell out laughing. If Rubio had won the nomination he'd have run away with it. She would have carried maybe 5 or 6 states and the popular vote would have been heavily the other way. They got the best chance they were ever likely to have when Trump was nominated.

    52. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The only thing you might be right about is the SCOTUS appointments. They are likely to be heavily conservative. Given the choice between far left judges that want to reinterpret the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean thus usurping the legislative branch and the far right who interpret the Constitution exactly as it's written I think I'll take far right. Sure I'd like some Judges like those Reagan appointed but it seems there are no more moderate appointments. We either get far left or far right nowadays.

    53. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No way! If they actually do a recount and it was off by 45,000 votes the original counters should be jailed. I don't care if it's 0.01% of the total vote that is a crap load of miscounting.

    54. Re: Valid by NG+Resonance · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Internet Archive is one of the most important sources of information ever created. I think we should put a copy of it on every continent at the very least.

      Yes, but its policy of retroactively blocking archived webpages due to the feelings of the domain's current owner is outrageous. Fat lot of good multiple copies will do when the Archive's own policies hamstring it.

    55. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Sorry, the guy I replied to actually said scrub the web, not the internet. My bad. My point is he's only the President. He has influence and power but it's limited by the Constitution. He says a lot of crazy shit and then he ends up doing none of it. He's been playing a reality show on a grand scale for a couple of years. I don't give a shit what they do with their servers, personally I think redundancy is a good thing. Telling everyone they're doing it because of Trump is sensationalism.

    56. Re:Valid by quenda · · Score: 2

      isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??

      The Queen does not rule. She reigns.

    57. Re: Valid by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

      Isn't that redundancy? In case Trump gets angry at some criticism and orders the web be scrubbed of all references to something?

      You mean along the lines of those European "right to be forgotten" laws which require Google remove certain search results form their indices?

      Let's be fair - that's been going on for a while now. Why didn't archive.org get worked up over that?

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    58. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      autocrat
      ôdkrat/
      noun
      noun: autocrat; plural noun: autocrats

              a ruler who has absolute power.

      The president does not have absolute power. Read the Constitution, the position of POTUS has clearly stated authority within limits. He's not an autocrat. Castro was an autocrat. Even Putin isn't an autocrat.

    59. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Roosevelt didn't have the power to send American citizens of Japanese-decent to internment camps.

      The US Supreme Court would disagree:

      * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korematsu_v._United_States

    60. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow I really hope you're not a Canadian if you don't understand how much of a role that the Queen of Canada holds in a civics perspective. I thought it was just US kids who didn't learn enough about their own governments roles and functions.

    61. Re: Valid by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Ahhh, so playing on the unfounded fears of idiotic Americans is a resource. It appears they are using the same one Hillary and the Democrats were using to try to get elected.

      Interesting, it also appears as if that resource has become more powerful now that the Democrats have failed.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    62. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Said as if the US doesn't have refugees... A day after one just tried to murder a bunch of people in college.

    63. Re: Valid by Icegryphon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Some people seem to have forgotten Eric Holder Shutting down Mega-upload and other websites.
      Obama administration also gave away control to ICANN.
      I'm sure nothing bad with happen ;^)

    64. Re: Valid by ScienceofSpock · · Score: 1

      My only question is why this wasn't done before if they have the resources.

      It's right up there, in the summary:

      Today, it began collecting donations for the Internet Archive of Canada...

      They apparently DON'T have the resources (yet)

    65. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually you were just baited into revealing liberal hypocrisy, but I bet you didn't notice that he was drawing attention to the crap they've pulled because of your filter bubble.

    66. Re: Valid by schnell · · Score: 1

      You mean along the lines of those European "right to be forgotten" laws which require Google remove certain search results form their indices? Let's be fair - that's been going on for a while now. Why didn't archive.org get worked up over that?

      Umm.. because those laws were in Europe, the Internet Archive was in the US (with no vital business dealings in the EU) and so they didn't apply?

      The Internet Archive is basically saying that for the first time they are now actively concerned that Internet scrubbing laws*, executive orders, regulations, whatever will be enacted in the United States where they are based. Hence the move to mirror the archive in Canada.

      * Excluding laws about taking stuff off the net that violated laws or copyright statutes etc.; that has always been illegal in the US, and that has not seemed to bother the Internet Archive.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    67. Re: Valid by fisted · · Score: 1

      The fuck?

    68. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Modern legal experts agree that a major contributor to the Korematsu ruling was that the government knowingly submitted false information related to the case. Korematsu only hasn't been overturned because the ruling doesn't generally get cited as precedent in cases anymore. The convictions of korematsu and Hirabayashi, however, both have been.

    69. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      remember, the DNC and Clinton picked Trump as their Pied Piper for the media to push as the GOP nomination.

      They are why Trump is selecting the next administration.

    70. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama got a break because he wasn't certifiably nutso.

      As opposed to a certified nutso?

      Did you just out yourself as a birther?

    71. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Her corruption and hubris was only the half of it. Once she won the primary (by hook or by crook), rather than building bridges with the rest of the Democrats, her campaign team burned them, mocking and insulting the "Bernie Bros" and effectively telling them she didn't need their vote. And the numbers show that they didn't bother to show up at the polls.

      In the end, it boils down to their campaign slogans: "Make America Great Again" versus "White men should check their privilege" (or was it "vote for me while I punch up at you"? My memory is kind of fuzzy. It could have been something like "It's MY turn" but I think that's just something I remember from kindergarten so that can't possibly be the slogan a grown adult would choose) One slogan energized the masses, the other not so much.

      For the record, I voted Gary Johnson in Texas.

    72. Re: Valid by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Does that sound like they "have the resources"?

      They had the resources to ask for donations eight years ago, had they wanted to.

      They had the resources seven years ago. Six. Five. Shall I continue?

      They could have begun the natural distribution of the knowledge to various states a long time go, but chose not to. They lived through the beginnings of DMCA and *AA without worry. The handwriting on wall for the free-for-all Internet age has been there for a long time. We've even got highly respected internet authorities calling for much stronger controls on the internet (so IoT don't do "bad things", you know.)

      Instead, they wait until they can take advantage of, and help spread the fear and doubt about, the awful things that awful Donald is going to do to everyone. They're not even leaving the motives to question, they're announcing that it's fear.

      Remind me, what did we call the people who objected to the things Obama promised to do? I think it started with "R", as I recall. It wasn't "rational objections to policy".

    73. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Not to go off topic or anything, but Barrack Obama was the best president we've ever had.

    74. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Ah, a Libertarian. I thought Gary Johnson was a poor choice for the Libertarian party. He had all the charisma of a dead fish. If they had chosen someone with a personality I think this might have been the year they could have at least made a showing.

    75. Re: Valid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      He and the republicans will control the Supreme Court and both houses. There is s very real danger of seeing freedom of speech and fair use curtailed

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    76. Re: Valid by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Who's going to maintain the archive in Antarctica?

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    77. Re: Valid by foradoxium · · Score: 1

      there are people there, year round. They even have a post office.

    78. Re: Valid by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      just like that other guy who could walk on water.

      Chiun.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    79. Re: Valid by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It's so sad that words retaining their meaning is considered "far right".

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    80. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Clinton was the best of last 20 years. A little weed and a little blow don't seem like a big deal now compared to Trump, do they?

    81. Re: Valid by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Wrong orifice.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    82. Re: Valid by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There are on average about 20,000 people involved in counting votes in each state. You're talking about imprisoning that many people in one fell swoop.

      Furthermore, 45,000 is 0.01% of 450,000,000. There aren't even that many people in the US, let alone voters.
      Think before you post.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    83. Re: Valid by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Wow, new to /. An AC who can psychoanalyze people they've never met and see the future.

    84. Re:Valid by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      So he hasn't actually gone so far as college campuses in limiting and punishing speech?*

      Well, good then, he is simply exercising his free speech and expressing an opinion about what the law should be. Wake me if he actually tries to impose unconstitutional speech codes like college campuses.

      Concerned about repression on college campuses? Consider a gift to: FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

      *And whose Secretary of Education may very well review those unconstitutional rules?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    85. Re: Valid by buss_error · · Score: 1

      He's elected president. Not dictator. He doesn't have the power to "scrub the web."

      Hum um. And he doesn't have the power to affect stock prices either.

      It is true - directly has does not have that power. However, a simple observation "Gee, that's a nice business you have there. It would be a shame to have the FBI start investigating, the IRS poke around, and the SEC and FTC to look at every little thing you did and do..." is quite effective in securing cooperation on matters not directly within the delineated powers of any politician. This is one of many factors which seems to have escaped - or been ignored as unimportant - the notice of those that elected Mr. Trump.

      Because President Elect Trump is a bastion of careful thought, absolute veracity, and considered policy I'm sure this will never, not ever, be an issue.

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    86. Re: Valid by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      If you ignore the fact that it's liberals calling for limits on freedom of speach, liberals that support *safe spaces* where dialog is not allowed, liberals that have been caught beating people up for voting. I guess as long as you ignore all available evidence you might have a point.

    87. Re: Valid by BigRuffian · · Score: 1

      Eating babies... Now the ban on birth control makes sense. Gotta keep supply up to meet demand!

    88. Re: Valid by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      Yet.

      People are so focused on Trump himself that they seem not to realize just how dangerous the situation we are in really is. Trump is "just" president, sure. But he has a rubber-stamp congress. So the only brake on him now is the currently-crippled Supreme Court. And he's a single retirement or death away from having a rubber-stamp there as well; and ruling as a dictator in fact, if not in name.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    89. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I had no idea that the Office of the President came with magic powers that somehow completely work around all known forms of logic and reason.

      But it's sure starting to look that way with all the hysteria...

    90. Re: Valid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Except for the Senate filibuster, which the Democrats will have no problem abusing just as much as Republicans did.

      Everyone seems to forget about that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    91. Re: Valid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 2

      FDR, Lincoln, Truman, and Jefferson would like to have a word with you.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    92. Re:Valid by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 2

      With Obama's position on freedom of speech it seems it's more like just a partisan bloviation. CNN's Tapper: Obama has used Espionage Act more than all previous administrations The federal criminal charges filed against National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden make it seven times that the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act against government workers who shared information with the press. In at least two instances, the government’s investigations have delved into the practices of reporters and news organizations and put reporters in legal jeopardy. This has raised red flags among defenders of the media. In a vigorous exchange on CNN’s The Lead, host Jake Tapper asserted to Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post that "the Obama administration has used the Espionage Act to go after whistleblowers who leaked to journalists ... more than all previous administrations combined." http://www.politifact.com/pund...

    93. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The UK experienced a far-right political pivot (UKIP, Brexit, etc) and the snooper's charter is now law.

      Certain political ideologies and authoritarianism always come hand in hand.

      Trump is, despite what his followers think, politically pretty clueless. (Just read his tweets) At best he's going to be a pupped manipulated by advisers that will fight for his favor. In that chaos, there will be a very long line of very bad people looking to push your very worst privacy nightmares in to law.

      The worst thing about this whole mess is that the people who voted him in will be oblivious to what they've done until it's too late. The far-right information bubble is real and it is frightening.

    94. Re:Valid by ooloorie · · Score: 1

      With Trumps position on libel laws, smart move to project against legal action.

      Trump isn't the supreme leader, he is merely the president. So, his "position on libel laws" really doesn't matter.

    95. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know, postings like this make me glad that Trump is president, rather than the alternative that you seem to support.

    96. Re: Valid by hey! · · Score: 1

      Learn the difference between de facto and de jure.

      The de jure powers of the president are limited by the Constitution.

      The de facto powers of the president are limited by what the people who work for him are willing to go along with.

      So who is picked for cabinet makes a very big difference.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    97. Re: Valid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you know what isn't going to happen with any of this partisan bullshit? Amending the Constitution. No way he gets 67 votes in the Senate, and no way 3/4 of the states ratify.

      Strangely, the one elected official in federal or state government not involved in amending the constitution is the president - as a 2/3 majority vote is required in both the house and senate, it's already at veto override numbers. Also, it is written and voted on as a joint resolution which never goes to the White House for executive signature.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    98. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Conservative justices on the Supreme Court tend to follow the strict words of the Constitution and its amendments. "Interpreting" it to mean shit it doesn't say is the other guys - the "living document" crowd.

    99. Re: Valid by dryeo · · Score: 1

      So do you agree that Congress will not pass any laws that limit speech and all such laws should be thrown out? Or do you believe that all the limitations that the Supreme Court has ruled as Constitutional are OK?
      How about the 2nd? The people shall have the right to bear arms. Or perhaps you agree that there are all kinds of people that shouldn't have that right.
      The idea that any Americans follow their Bill of Rights is laughable as they all seem to agree with certain exceptions and none ever talk about amending to clarify, instead just appointing heavily biased judges to rule the way whichever side wants the Constitution to read.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    100. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      https://twitter.com/realDonald...

      Congratulations, you have been personally trolled by the president. Few people before the Trump era could say that.

    101. Re: Valid by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      ... but it was Her Turn.

      -- The DNC

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    102. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or they see the current hysteria as an excellent fundraising opportunity.

    103. Re:Valid by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      After watching CNN and MSNBC, I could see someone believing Trump was just elected Comic Book Super-Villain.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    104. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Rand Paul had run as a Libertarian he might be selecting his cabinet right now. That HAS to really burn for the guy.

    105. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's sad that far right and far left, both forms of extremism, are not seen as opposite poles, with conservatism in the exact middle between.

    106. Re: Valid by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus.

      Yes he did:

      The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

    107. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump has the same freedom of speech to advocate crazy unconstitutional things as any of the rest of us. And the same lack of authority to implement said crazy ideas as the rest of us. The only dangerous precedent is the crap that Obama pulled with his pen.

      Thanks, Obama.

    108. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I though I remembered the Democrats activating some 'nuclear option' that over-rode the filibuster. Didn't they do something like that, even though they were warned?

    109. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 1
      I responded to this in greater detail in other earlier comments, but, this doesn't say that the president has this power all to himself. At the time, the Chief Justice, acting as a Circuit Court Judge, ruled that it was unconstitutional for the president to suspend the writ without approval from congress. Lincoln ignored this ruling entirely, and continued to lock people up, doing anything he felt necessary to keep from losing Maryland to the South.

      Then we wrote our State Song about the "Despot".

    110. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      I thought about excluding Antarctica, but nah, I want at least the occasional data-dump there too. Antarctica stands a chance of surviving a few disasters that other continents might not.

    111. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Not the current supreme court, just the misinformed court of the time. The ruling from Korematsu v US only hasn't been overturned because it hasn't been cited as precedent lately. The conviction in question was overturned because the government was knowingly submitting false information.

    112. Re:Valid by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      Congratulations, you have been personally trolled by the president

      Congratulations, you have elected a president who trolls citizens.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    113. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The first birther rumors were started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the 2008 primary race.

    114. Re: Valid by quax · · Score: 1

      Plenty of dictators came to power through legal means.

      From his tweet rants it certainly seems he doesn't understand that he wasn't crowned king.

    115. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      mainly those that discovered they hate him after he decided to run as a Republican much as has happened to those that ran before.

      I've been mocking and belittling the man for the better part of 30 years.

      He just keeps giving new material. I've already burned the flag of Trump.

      On National TV. Come at me bro, I dare you.

    116. Re: Valid by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The constitution doesn't give the Chief Justice, or for that matter the judiciary as a whole, any role in determining how that particular clause is applied.

    117. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warned about what? That Republicans would do whatever they wanted anyway?

      Yes, they were. There is no other body than the Senate itself that regulates its rules.

      Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.

      Why do idiots think that somehow it must be the Democrats fault? Do you not read the Constitution? Are you one of the many ignorant people who thinks the filibuster ever mattered to the GOP except as a weapon they could use? They'll kill it in a heartbeat.

    118. Re:Valid by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      You sound a lot like the winner. Who's ranted against free speech, and freedom of the press. And that's just this week.

      Priceless: That moment when the MSM realizes Trump just took a position advocated by Hillary Clinton in 2005

      As the media freaks out over Donald Trump’s latest tweet, this one on criminalizing the burning of the American flag, here’s something you probably won’t read a lot about: Hillary Clinton agrees with the president-elect (or at least she used to):

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    119. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are on average about 20,000 people involved in counting votes in each state. You're talking about imprisoning that many people in one fell swoop.

      The ones that didn't make mistakes can go free. Simple solution.

      Furthermore, 45,000 is 0.01% of 450,000,000. There aren't even that many people in the US, let alone voters.

      Let's review:

      I don't care if it's 0.01% of the total vote that is a crap load of miscounting.

      That is clearly describing a lower extreme, rather than designating an actual level. By asserting that that is not possible to achieve, you are ignoring the point, namely even if by some means, it were the low, it wouldn't matter. Since you are claiming it can't yet be reached, then so what? It'll just be higher, perhaps far higher. Meaning it is more valid to count.

      Think before you post. Read carefully. Examine your own response. See if you are looking especially stupid.

    120. Re: Valid by buss_error · · Score: 1

      " who interpret the Constitution exactly as it's written"

      Might be good for the days of sailing ships, buggy whips, whale oil lamps, slavery and no voting by women. Not too in touch with today. This is why the founders insisted that the constitution be capable of change in the first place.

      Why is it when a judge finds something the right doesn't like, they are "activist" and "interpreting the constitution they way they wish it was" and when they like how the judge rules they are a "wise jurist."?

      --
      Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
    121. Re:Valid by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Hey dumb fuck.

      "She did it too" is not a valid defense.

      She's not president.

      He's threatening removing citizenship over a legal display of political speech, per the Supreme Court.

      Regardless of who says it, there is no justification for that.

      So fuck off.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    122. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You reply to a person who only considers facts he agrees with; the facts that fit into the biased keyhole he views the world through.

    123. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just because you're too stupid to think of the question, doesn't mean it's "without question".

    124. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An American refugee in Canada is fairly unlikely to run amok and try to kill a bunch of college students.

    125. Re: Valid by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Honestly, even if Trump wasn't elected, this is still a very good idea.

      It is, and I suspect they were probably planning to do this anyway. The anti-Trump spin is just a way to get liberals to throw money at them during their fundraiser.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    126. Re: Valid by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Do you mean 'The Hitler Wannabe Douchebag Show' that plays Thursday nights on Comedy Central? That show is a riot! Who would have guessed Rachel Maddog would look so good with a mustache!?!

    127. Re: Valid by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      This is why the founders insisted that the constitution be capable of change in the first place.

      Indeed. And a process was even specified for how it would be changeable. They did a heck of a job designing it.

    128. Re: Valid by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I though I remembered the Democrats activating some 'nuclear option' that over-rode the filibuster. Didn't they do something like that that set a dangerous precedent, even though they were warned?

    129. Re: Valid by yuriklastalov · · Score: 1

      Too bad for America that Trump has been playing 8 dimensional hyper-Politics while everyone else was just playing politics. This means that not only is he the president of this reality, he's also president of every other possible America in the multiverse. In some of these versions of America, there exist less Constitutional protections, and it is with these alternate Americas that he will implement his evil plans.

      How can you stop an inter-dimensional Dictator like Trump? It's simple: you can't. Trump is worse than Hitler, if only because Hitler was the Fuhrer of one lousy dimension. Trump is the Fuhrer of all of them!

    130. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both candidates wanted to strip people of constitutional rights for burning flags, dear.

    131. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is it when a judge finds something the right doesn't like, they are "activist" and "interpreting the constitution they way they wish it was" and when they like how the judge rules they are a "wise jurist."?

      Correlation =/= Causation

    132. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The president of the United States is very close to a dictator-for-for years. The word 'president' is very misleading; there is an insane amount of power vested in a signle person.

    133. Re:Valid by mwvdlee · · Score: 2

      From what I read, they're not trying to protect against trump, but just adding redundancy in general.
      Trump's election was just a reminder of how vulnerable they might be to changes in political power.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    134. Re: Valid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The right supports safe spaces too. That's why they are compiling a list of professors who upset their right wing sensibilities.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    135. Re:Valid by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      "She did it too" is not a valid defense.

      I've got a feeling that we're going to be hearing that "defence" for a long time. Hell, the Republicans, in charge of the 4 branches, could turn America into Biff Tannen land and you'd still be hearing "but Hillary".

      It seems these people are incapable of taking responsibility for their actions.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    136. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, against Clinton I could understand, but WHY against Trump?

    137. Re: Valid by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      -1 Troll = Q.E.D.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    138. Re: Valid by PatrickNarkinsky · · Score: 1

      Washington would like to have a word with you!!!

    139. Re: Valid by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It always amazes me what Americans consider to be the "far left". By European standards, all SCOTUS judges are extremely conservative.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    140. Re: Valid by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Forget Charisma, he's as informed about the world as a dead fish is about space travel. That was his greatest undoing.

      The president's single most important job (and the area where he wields by far the greatest power) is foreign policy - a candidate who can't name a single foreign leader he respects (and indeed failed to name any at all), doesn't know what 'A leppo' is (at a time when that city is a major crisis the next administration will HAVE to continue responding to in SOME way - not arguing for any particular policy, but the president will have to understand the issue to choose one) and who actually tried to blow that all off with 'If I don't know where they are, I can't bomb them' (as if that ever stopped George W. Bush)... no.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    141. Re: Valid by silentcoder · · Score: 2

      Every American I've ever spoken to has agreed that the supreme court is ruining the country with a history of terrible decisions. No two American's I've ever spoken to have been able to agree on which decisions were wrong.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    142. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is ridiculous, I watched a Twitter feed get hammered by the Liberal GOV just last month and the archive.org of its feed was deleted at the same time. Yes during the election, I guess Obama's Comet pingpong and Pizzagate folks didn't like it. So this is all bull to get donations and trick you people yet again.
          Dont worry though, I'm sure all these people have your best interest at heart. .

    143. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well,
      I am still waiting for those Americans who crashed the Canadian immigration page ... I guess they finally found out what taxes are in Canada, and how much the public transport costs ...

    144. Re:Valid by sudon't · · Score: 1

      I'm firm believer in backups, so Awesome!

      But where were these concerns about "government surveillance" not going away when Pres. Obama was expanding them rather than ending them like he promised in his first campaign.

      People, rightly or wrongly, trusted Obama a lot more than they trust Trump. Certainly, Obama is a more mature person, and can handle criticism. I think these qualities lulled people into a greater sense of security. People were able to dismiss any valid criticism coming from the Right, because so much of the Right's criticisms were nonsense. Trump, on the other hand, is constantly lashing out at people, is incredibly immature, seems full of ridiculous ideas, and because of this, does not inspire confidence in most people.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    145. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gary Johnson was not the reason to vote libertarian. Especially in non swing states I think it's crazy not to push a party toward 5%.

    146. Re: Valid by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Because the only job he's had before was selling real estate in New York, where he was given help starting out with a mighty big loan and "networking" assistance from his dad. That's about as much of a "real job" as selling cigarettes in prison if you're the son of a top cigarette dealer who gives you a big carton to start with and his endorsement.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    147. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      His first real job, meaning he's working for someone other than himself.

    148. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your problem with that remark is that MOST everyone, yourself probably included have any goddamn clue how it all works. Why do I know this? Because the other assholes running had zero knowledge as well, but you don't have a problem with them as well.

      Grow the fuck up and wise the fuck up.

    149. Re: Valid by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      " It was like she had something on the DNC or something where they had to support her."

      Sure, she had Debbie Wasserman Schultz. But I'm sure everyone on the left is still going to blame Russia. This was a self inflicted wound.
      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    150. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Roosevelt didn't have the power to send American citizens of Japanese-decent to internment camps.

      Honestly, even if Trump wasn't elected, this is still a very good idea. The Internet Archive is one of the most important sources of information ever created. I think we should put a copy of it on every continent at the very least.

      No worries - if my download history over the last 15 or so years from the IA is any indication of other users' habits, then the IA is already backed up in distributed fashion. Everywhere.

    151. Re:Valid by sudon't · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I hear he's going to eat our babies, ban all birth-control, and put all Democrats into concentration camps too!!!!!!!

      DID I MENTION THAT I'M TOTALLY RATIONAL, and in no way just a sore loser who is freaking out like a petulant child over losing an election?!?

      Haha, that's funny because he's projecting Right-wing nut-job paranoia of forced abortions, banning guns, and FEMA camps onto the Left. I gotta say though, stuff like that is a lot funnier when it's true. There's plenty of stupidity on the Left nowadays, mainly in the form of the conservative impulse to regulate the lifestyles of others through coercive taxes and gun regulations, and a couple of phony science stances on second-hand smoke and vaccinations, but absurd paranoia is still mostly the province of the Right.
      As far as being sore losers, seriously, people are freaking out because Donald Trump was elected president, not because a Republican was. I keep wondering if the people who voted for him have any idea of who he is.

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    152. Re: Valid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Only on senate confirmable appointments, such as the Federal bench.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    153. Re: Valid by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      They made a rule change to remove cloture motions specifically from confirmation votes, denying a filibuster for senate confirmations only. Any legislative votes are still subject to the 60-vote cloture motion.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    154. Re: Valid by dywolf · · Score: 1

      you really REALLY need to learn some history, as well as remember that he PICKS the WH Counsel and the Attorney General, and he likes Yes Men who bow to him and reinforce his ego. there are people who support the notion of locking up political enemies. whereas if Obama had tried it, LEOs wouldnt have done it, primarly being opposed to him...but LEOs (and military) are predominantly Trump supporters, predominantly -very- conservative. many among them actually wish police or military had more power; many in the military think the country would be better off run by the military. overall the population is becoming decreasingly supportive of democracy, and increasingly supportive of authoritarian style government. they increasing believe "leadership" is the ability to yell and beat and cow people into submission. even in the military where we actually teach people the 14 leadership traits, the troops are forgetting what it means.

      law only works and restrains people when people, especially those who enforce it, believe in it.
      we are increasingly becoming a nation where those persons are ok with inequitable enforcement, particularly against those they disagree with.
      this is a dangerous state of affairs.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    155. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      I like the Bill of Rights as written. The right to free speech, the right to bear arms, the right to not be required to testify against yourself, these are so fundamental that even though the founders considered them obvious they had the foresight to put it in writing so that it would endure. Obviously that was a brilliant foresight. The one problem is the way the 10th was skirted. The Feds have assumed all kinds of powers they should never have been given. Free speech even protects the burning of the flag despite the fact that Mr. Trump doesn't think it does. He will find out if he's foolish enough to try to ban it. I support things like flag burning even though I abhor the practice and the people that partake of it. To deny their freedom would be to deny my own.

    156. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      There is a clear process to amend the Constitution. That is how things are done under the rule of law. When you circumvent the rule of law by activist judges then you open us all up to craziness. Yeah you like your activist judge but how are you going to like mine? Having the definition of the 2nd and 1st and 4th amendments change according to which judges are currently serving in SCOTUS is a real problem. I barely agree with the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" exception to the 1st amendment. I certainly don't like what the past two administrations, one left wing and one right, have done with the 4th amendment and how the court has upheld that. What the fuck does a "secret" court and "secret" warrants have to do with a free society? God damn Bush and his "Patriot Act." And God damn Obama for continuing to support it.

    157. Re:Valid by mjwx · · Score: 1

      isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??, and didnt the UK just institute draconian surveillance laws

      Canada, like England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the Commonwealth, is a constitutional monarchy.

      This means we are ruled by an elected government.

      The Queen and royals are entirely figureheads. People who throw charity balls and make Christmas statements once a year, I don't expect Americans to understand this, but it's nice to have a leader who you dint have to be disappointed in all the time.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    158. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I spent some time in Europe. 3 years in Germany and almost 2 in Spain. I was amazed at how they lived over there. It was fun to visit and live there but I can't imagine things running that way here. The people in the US are far different. Europeans seemed more civilized. The difference in how they act on public transportation couldn't be more telling. I enjoyed it there but it always felt alien. I guess I am a barbarian at heart.

    159. Re: Valid by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Cool.

    160. Re: Valid by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      and President washington, who refused to be king washington and thought 2 terms was enough.

    161. Re: Valid by fropenn · · Score: 1

      Filibuster exists for now, but that could change, too, and Republicans have openly talked about removing filibuster from the rules.

    162. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Supporting him politically does not mean those of the conservative political spectrum will blindly follow him and obey unconstitutional orders. Yes some may, but many more will not. Most conservatives voted and backed him because he was a far better option than Hillary. But he is not trusted by the right, we are not blindly following him. You see far more blind following on the left

    163. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their "team" "won", so that's all they care about for the next 4 years, facts and outcomes be damned.

    164. Re: Valid by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      Jesus do you need the damn joke broken down for you?

      You said they didn't have the resources. Now that Trump is elected they magically have the resources from donations. Why didn't they do it before? Because Trump wasn't elected yet and they couldn't scare people into irrationally thinking the president elect had magical internet erasing powers (Well one of the candidates did, ha-ha-ha that's a joke too, get it? Please don't make me explain this one too.)
      Democrats were using fear of Trump (Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, inexperienced, etc, ad nauseum) to garner votes. It didn't work. Now that he's actually been elected (You mean the mother fucker won?!?!? (This is a reference to a bit by Eddie Murphy about elections (also a joke.))) some people are really scared, and even more so than they were when he was just a candidate. So, now it is easier to use scare tactics to raise money. Therefore, fear of Trump is even more of a "resource" now that he has been elected than it was before he was elected, as it allows websites like the Internet Archive to pay for their backup system in Canada.

      Ta da! Now laugh.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    165. Re: Valid by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Nice stereotyping of all Americans. Many in fact do like the Bill of Rights as written, all of it. But continue to just assume that everybody only wants to keep parts of it. I voted for Trump, but he's flat wrong on how to treat burning the Flag. That is a protected form of speech. And it should be protected. I like the freedom of speech, I like the freedom to peaceably assemble (riots and blocking freeways is not peaceable) I like the freedom of religion, that there is no state endorsed church. I like the right to keep and bear arms and the rest of them. I wish the 10th was still respected as it should be.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    166. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's appropriate that only an anonymous coward would make such an assertion.

    167. Re:Valid by davecb · · Score: 1

      Citation, please?

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    168. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seems like a lot of people see Trump as some sort of Tabula Rasa on which to project whatever fears and hatreds they have.

    169. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only obliquely linked it to Trump. They simply referred to a "new administration. "

    170. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I voted for Trump, but he's flat wrong on how to treat burning the Flag. That is a protected form of speech. And it should be protected.

      I don't like that you voted for Trump, but, in the spirit of the conversation, it's about as American as it can get to openly and publicly disagree with people and their choices. Similarly to what you said above, one can support the office of the President, but not support the person sitting behind the desk; disagreeing with, and openly and publicly criticizing a sitting President is about as 1st Amendment as you can get, too. You have every right, as a Citizen of the United States, to even go so far as to write a letter to the POTUS, telling him (or her) they're an idiot for such-and-such, you don't agree with them, and that you wish they'd just leave -- so long as you don't issue threats against them. If more people understood -- and embraced -- this, we'd have a much more open dialog with our government in general, in my personal opinion.

    171. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah? You notice I get modded UP, not DOWN, so maybe you're just a butthurt jackhole who voted for Trump and can't handle your boy being criticized? 1st Amendment only applies to people who agree with YOU? LOL stay mad.

    172. Re: Valid by dwillden · · Score: 1

      Being interpreted as it is written does not preclude technological advances. Nor does it preclude updating the document via the established method of amendments. It is very in touch with today, the areas where it is not have been amended (end slavery, granting voting rights to women etc.) In areas where advancing tech does not matter, sailing ships, buggy whips, whale oil lamps, firearm advances, advances in methods of spreading speech etc... it has not needed change and thus has not been amended.

      --
      I'm too lazy to compose a creative sig.
    173. Re: Valid by MooseMiester · · Score: 1
      Lefty opposite day.

      he likes Yes Men who bow to him and reinforce his ego

      This is exactly what Obama did, and why they lost. Trump seems to be picking all kinds of really smart people...

      many among them actually wish police or military had more power

      Good grief, man, do you know ANYTHING about conservatives other than what you've read about them on Think Progress, the Huffing and Puffing post, etc?

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    174. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Christ, the only way you people could be more pathetic is to actually hold a shit-in.

    175. Re: Valid by vuffi_raa · · Score: 1

      sure he does, he is putting in place all the people he wants to do the job he wants with no oversight since the congress is controlled by his party, meaning FCC, Trade, etc that can control those kinds of decisions will be people that can make the decisions he wants with zero check and balance.

    176. Re: Valid by kenh · · Score: 1

      Besides, the US 'gave up control' of the internet...

      Are they really afraid the in-coming Trump administration is going to raid the server farms hosting this obscure internet resource?

      --
      Ken
    177. Re: Valid by kenh · · Score: 1

      They only obliquely linked it to Trump. They simply referred to a "new administration. "

      Yeah, they could have meant any one of several new administrations in the US...

      --
      Ken
    178. Re: Valid by fisted · · Score: 1

      Jesus do you need the damn joke broken down for you?

      Please don't call me Jesus, it's really more an inside name for my apostles. If you are one of my apostles, you might have missed that we switched to a smarcard based authentication system recently (it's two-factor!). Thanks for considering.

      do you need the damn joke broken down for you?

      Apparently so. Note that this doesn't necessarily mean that I'm extraordinarily dumb, it might just mean your joke was extraordinarily bad.

      You said they didn't have the resources. Now that Trump is elected they magically have the resources from donations.

      No, now they're pretty non-magically starting to raise money for the mirror.

      Why didn't they do it before?

      Who knows, maybe nobody gave a shit? Maybe it was on their TODO list for ages? Maybe they were reasonably convinced that the previous government did not pose a danger to their project?

      Because Trump wasn't elected yet and they couldn't scare people into irrationally thinking the president elect had magical internet erasing powers

      I can think of a ton of other excuses they could have used to scare people into donating for an outside-US mirror, well before Trump.

      Well one of the candidates did, ha-ha-ha that's a joke too, get it? Please don't make me explain this one too.

      As a German, I lack any sense of humor, so please do. Well, provided this joke isn't as crappy as your previous attempt at humor. You might also want to note that the US doesn't cover the entire planet and adjust your assumptions accordingly wrt. how familiar I am with - or how few actual fucks I give about - the details of this election that go beyond "who did actually end up getting elected".

      Democrats were using fear of Trump (Racism, sexism, homophobia, xenophobia, inexperienced, etc, ad nauseum) to garner votes. It didn't work.

      That's, like, very interesting.

      Now that he's actually been elected (You mean the mother fucker won?!?!? (This is a reference to a bit by Eddie Murphy about elections (also a joke.)))

      Since this is the first of your jokes that I immediately "get", and since it's pure shit and didn't even make me twitch, I'll take it as the baseline of your joke quality.

      [blah blah trump]

      Ok. Or maybe people don't trust in that everything going on in the US government is completely legit and happens 100% in compliance with the laws and the constitution (Film at fucking eleven). Nobody has a faint clue what your shiny new president is going to do, or to try. Everybody knows that if a govenment really wants something, it tends to find a way to make it happen. So in the light of this unpredictability, I'd say it's a justified, precautionary move.

      Ta da! Now laugh.

      Ok.

    179. Re: Valid by kenh · · Score: 1

      That was our mistake: believing a minority of the American people wouldn't next elect someone

      Too bad the vast majority of eligible/potential voters (over 100 million) chose not to even bother voting, instead they sat back and just watched it happen.

      who believes you should take away someone's citizenship for exercising their First Amendment rights.

      Doesn't matter what he believes, a person can not have their citizenship 'stripped' from them, SCOTUS made that ruling a few years ago.

      Hillary believes you shouldn't be able to burn the American flag...

      --
      Ken
    180. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is...in non-republican controlled states

    181. Re: Valid by kenh · · Score: 1

      Obama is a more mature person, and can handle criticism.

      Oh yeah? Try calling him 'Big Ears'...

      --
      Ken
    182. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% republican control of both houses AND the Supreme court AND the Presidency? He is Dictator for as long as it is profitable to him.

    183. Re: Valid by kenh · · Score: 1

      Plus, Canada welcomes refugees! :D

      Really? Well let's just send the next quarter-million refugees that stream across our southern border and deliver them in to Canada - I wonder how that will play out?

      --
      Ken
    184. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      All federal judges are given the implied power of Judicial Review over executive actions, and more specifically presidential actions. This was established in Little v. Barreme in 1804; nearly 60 years before Lincoln's action.

    185. Re: Valid by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      what's good for the gander.

    186. Re: Valid by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Established... by the court. When you rule that yes, you yourself have this or that power there's always a question of legitimacy. The constitution doesn't grant that power to the courts.

    187. Re:Valid by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The Internet Archive already uses strong backup practices, which almost certainly include offline copies. But until now all of them have been in the US, so that does not take care of the political risk. Making a mirror of the archive in Canada does. It exposes the archive to a new set of political risks, but having two locations decreases the overall risk level.

    188. Re:Valid by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Did you know that Biff Tannen was actually inspired by Donald Trump? http://www.thedailybeast.com/a...

      Back to the Future Part II was prophetic. It was just a year off. The Cubs won the World Series, Biff Tannen is the President-elect, and you can buy hoverboards at Target. Sadly the boards don't actually hover.

    189. Re: Valid by Verdatum · · Score: 1
      The ruling says that yes, the constitution does grant that power to the courts. The ruling merely confirmed it because it wasn't explicit. You can still derive that power by applying logic to a combination of statements that the constitution explicitly makes.

      Seriously, this aspect is not a controversial issue. This is covered in high school level constitution courses.

    190. Re: Valid by toquams · · Score: 1

      You must have been born during the last eight years. Otherwise, good luck with that campaign.

    191. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, the conservative justices having demonstrated such unerring devotion to the constitution (Citizens United) we can be certain to have a new utopia, free of any notion that society evolves (gasp - that word!) and the founders were unerring in their vision of the eternal needs of the Republic.

    192. Re:Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the media has convinced us that Trump is actually the antichrist and hitler combined, so obviously now we have to worry.

    193. Re: Valid by Dread_ed · · Score: 1

      I could have stopped you early on. My jokes are bad and just keep getting worse the longer I go. The baseline you took could be indicative of the highest quality available from this source. To whit, your responses were infinitely more humorous than what I can generate. I particularly like the "since it's pure shit and didn't even make me twitch" part. I have no ego when it comes to my lackluster attempts at humor and I do appreciate a good roast.

      It could be said that the funniest thing about my whole post is where I refer to Trump as the president elect. Hopefully its a lot funnier over there in Germany. Here its just sad and baffling. Kind of like my humor.

      Also, props on your username.

      --
      When the only tool you have is a claw hammer every problem starts to look like the back of someone's skull.
    194. Re: Valid by lsatenstein · · Score: 1

      I can is international, and being a world institution, one nation alone cannot shut it down.
      The real problem is that the world does not trust single countries, even if that country is the United States of America.

      The world used to revolve around the USA, now it revolves around the East, (Asia, India, etc.)

      --
      Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
    195. Re:Valid by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      The fact that some Republicans embarrassed themselves by acting batshit crazy in 2008 doesn't make it okay for some Democrats to do the same thing today. Batshit crazy is still batshit crazy either way.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    196. Re: Valid by tsotha · · Score: 1

      Again... a ruling by a court says the constitution grants that power to the courts. But it doesn't. You can read thing thing from start to finish and not find any sign of it. Once you start reading "implied" things into document you're off in television preacher land. I know it's not controversial today because that's the way it's been for many years, but in the 19th century it was.

    197. Re: Valid by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Too bad the vast majority of eligible/potential voters (over 100 million) chose not to even bother voting, instead they sat back and just watched it happen.

      Eh? What? Hang on.

      The population of the US is what - 300-odd million. Something like 50 million under 18s. Is it 1 or 2 million in jail? So that's an electorate of 248 million or so.

      How do you exclude something over 2/3 of the electorate from voting? Is that the 66% apathy rate that is the price of non-compulsory voting? Or is it because they're black, Hispanic or Cuban?

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    198. Re: Valid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ICANN was one choice out of only two possible outcomes (in the medium term): ICANN or UN.

      The "remain in US" chance was lost in the long (now medium) term the first time some idiot US judge decided to seize DNS domains from a non-US owner. Worse, it was not even done on grounds that most would consider non-reprehensible under every local law (to bring down a botnet), or during a state of war. It was just for the benefit of some random media-conglomerate, and based on US laws. At that moment, a very strong movement to get it out of US control one way or the other got a lot of backing.

      The UN would almost certainly kick it to the ITU-T, which is heavily biased towards country-specific policies and filtering (aka censorship), mass-wiretapping, non-neutrality, and old-style billing (think "international surcharges"). ICANN is not friendly to any of those, and it was engineered to be far more resilient to changes in that direction as far as the multi-stakeholders are concerned. You can still take it over, but it will require a lot more work than just asking nicely (which is all it would take for ITU-T).

      It was a correct decision to handle it to ICANN. It actually protects the values that are in the US constitution far better than keeping it under the direct influence of the next US president. And it is a very strong stabilizing force in the future cyber-shit-storms we are sure to get given the current trend of totalitarianism resurgence in the western world.

    199. Re: Valid by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
      That will depress prices for baby dealers.

      You need to throttle the supply to boost prices and increase the value of existing stocks. Though Trump might experience constitutional issues due to his conflicts of interest in this business. He has several investments in this market. Oblig Swift reference.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    200. Re: Valid by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      If you think the far right wants to interpret the Constitution as it's written, you're biased. They aren't fond of the "establishment of religion" clause, preferring to spend my tax money on their religious practices. They don't seem to like the Fourth Amendment (not that the far left does, either).

      One problem of interpreting the Constitution exactly as written is that we do things they didn't think of. Lots of my private stuff is in computer files, which are not literally papers, and, while the computer itself is part of my effects the files inside don't seem to quite match that. I'd really like the Fourth to cover these things.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    201. Re: Valid by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Given the choice between far left judges that want to reinterpret the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean thus usurping the legislative branch and the far right who interpret the Constitution exactly as it's written I think I'll take far right.

      Oh, but if only that's what far-right judges believed in!
      I would have liked Antonin Scalia if he'd actually done what he claimed in his excellent writings.

    202. Re: Valid by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The first birther rumors were started by the Hillary Clinton campaign in the 2008 primary race.

      They were started by a former Clinton volunteer as Obama won the primary. That didn't go anywhere, but Trump picked it up and ran with it for the next eight years.

    203. Re: Valid by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Because archive.org doesn't fall under European laws. .Org is US property, and the servers are located in the US, so they don't have to abide by European laws except in extreme circumstances.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    204. Re:Valid by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      - downed and boarded the plane of the President of Boliva

      1. Downed means they shot the plane out of the air.
      2. Europeans did this, not the US.

      I don't know anything about your other accusations, but with how very off that one is, you have zero credibility with me.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  2. Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase.
     
    Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act? Sounds like more leftist hypocrisy and hyperbole to me.

    1. Re:Well then... by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      Did I miss something? I don't remember either candidate so much as suggesting that they would do anything about the rampant government surveillance.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Well then... by anthony_greer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      yep...just like all the libs that scream "I'm moving to $Canada-or-UE-Countrey if $Republican wins $Office"

      They never follow thru...I love the Archive, but this just seems purely political and not based on real threats to speech or archival activities.

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

      They don't follow through because Canada wont let the vast majority in and by the time they do get a chance at getting in you'll be 2-3 presidents down the road

    4. Re:Well then... by Kierthos · · Score: 1

      I seem to recall more than a few conservative talking heads "threatening" to leave the U.S. if/when Obama did something they didn't like, and then not following through on it either.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    5. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most Trump supporters don't like those "talking heads" either. Many wish they would all follow through and move to Canada or anywhere else. Maybe they'll be so kind as to also stop voting.

    6. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My Sister moved to Canada after W. Bush won his second term. She is living there still.

    7. Re:Well then... by butchersong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is simply a marketing tactic. Canada is not exactly an ideal spot to locate such a backup in any case given their hate speech legislation and tactic of slapping very heavy fines on people who might have offended one of an infinite number of gender pronoun protected groups.

    8. Re:Well then... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      I was wondering about that too. I would have thought Denmark or Norway would be a better choice. Neither is going to be very interested in censoring English language stuff. Iceland would be still better, but there would be connection issues.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    9. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not nearly that difficult. I moved to Canada a few years ago (to London, Ontario from Louisville, KY). It will be a while before I become a citizen, but the moving process took less than a year.

      To add, I don't work and have never worked in IT. I'm a pharmacist.

    10. Re:Well then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      At least three backups, Iceland, Russia and China. Not that Russia and China are great, their data will likely have to be encrypted...but they are among the few that won't just take an American order and execute.

      Each should have a provision for marking part of its dataset 'edited by court order' (in the foreign copies, so out of the crooked courts reach).

      Canada's hate speech laws are awful, almost rival Muslim nations for 'worst practice'.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    11. Re:Well then... by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Sadly its not hyperbole, this probably does need doing. The reason its happening now is because there are lots of lefty looser in tech, they made some token gripes about the surveillance stuff going on but mostly they were okay with it because 'their guy' was in charge.

      Now that someone else is in charge, suddenly they are scared. Hopefully they will learn a hard lesson about big government, hint: your party is not always in power!

      All and all though the threats to internet freedoms are real, and I don't see Trump (who I did vote for in the general, for other reasons) as likely to be someone who will reverse that trend. I also don't believe Hillary would have done anything but make matters in that regard worse either.

      This is the same deal as with the differed action people. Personally I think illegal are just that criminals and should be deported! Yes even people brought here as children! I would support the idea that people brought here as children should be allowed to apply for legal re-entry without prejudice however but they should go. Trump really ought to use the DOCA list as a road map for rounding them up. Hopefully that would make an impression on the left about the wisdom of allowing the federal government to register people and property!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    12. Re:Well then... by swb · · Score: 2

      How about the Netherlands or Switzerland?

      The Netherlands seems to have a pretty good handle on civil liberties. Switzerland seems to have a pretty good handle on individual privacy and has the bonus value of general global political neutrality.

      I'd say it's a toss-up, with a nod to the Netherlands which probably has slightly better network connectivity due to geography although I'd bet Switzerland wouldn't be too far behind on that, either.

    13. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Canada's hate speech laws are awful, almost rival Muslim nations for 'worst practice'.

      * citation needed.

    14. Re:Well then... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 1, Troll

      It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase.

      Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act? Sounds like more leftist hypocrisy and hyperbole to me.

      Sounds like more SOP conservative false equivalence to me: President Obama never threatend a crackdown on dissent, never threatened to jail his opponents, and never showed himself predisposed to seek revenge against critics with as many levers of power as are at his disposal.

      --
      Who did what now?
    15. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Obama never threatend a crackdown on dissent, never threatened to jail his opponents, and never showed himself predisposed to seek revenge against critics with as many levers of power as are at his disposal.

      Ummm, using the IRS to stifle conservative political groups?

    16. Re:Well then... by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2

      At least three backups, Iceland, Russia and China.

      And a big tarball on The Pirate Bay.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    17. Re: Well then... by Layzej · · Score: 1

      Section 318 of the Canadian hate speech laws prohibit people from promoting genocide. Sounds reasonable.

      Under section 319 you are allowed to incite hatred against a group as long as what you are saying is true, or even if it's not true as long as it's a religious belief, or even if it's false, and not part of your religion but on reasonable grounds you believed it to be true.

      The KKK would probably fall afoul of this law but not many others.

    18. Re:Well then... by galabar · · Score: 1

      Eats, shoots & leaves. ;)

    19. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ummm, using the IRS to stifle conservative political groups?

      Then they should have filed as political groups and not been allowed anonymous donations. It is amazing that people don't realize that they could have filed correctly and the IRS wouldn't have done anything, but political groups on both sides of the fence tried to skirt election disclosure laws. Something both side claim to support. And Obama wasn't fucking involved.

    20. Re:Well then... by 0100010001010011 · · Score: 1

      Canada is not exactly an ideal spot to locate

      They should have setup in the UK and let the government help peer everything.

    21. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those damn pandas.

    22. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald J. Trump Verified account
      @realDonaldTrump

      "Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!"

    23. Re: Well then... by corychristison · · Score: 2

      This is probably an even better idea than having it in the hands of one specific place. Mass replication is the best route.

    24. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has Trump threatened any of these? No.

      The closest you might accuse him of is threatening to prosecute Hillary. He said that because it was a popular thing to say, and has since backed off. It was the American people that wanted to prosecute Hillary, not Trump apparently; all evidence is that he just has a big mouth.

      Other than that, which I would consider disingenuous in that it's not a general or even (it turns out) a credible threat, when has he threatened to:

      1. - Crackdown on political dissent?
      2. - Jail his opponents?
      3. - Seek revenge against critics?

      He has been slanderously accused of all these things by a hysterical media but I've seen no evidence of it.

      On the other hand you have Obama saying we need to muzzle the media and control what is published to make sure it is "true." You have Merkel calling on Facebook to censor its news. You have the MSM trying to shut down competitors with accusations of fake news. I'm amazing Trump hasn't been kicked off Twitter since they seem to muzzle everyone else that supports him. These are more credible and chilling threats than anything Trump has said. There were rumors that Hillary would go after her enemies, both personal and political. Just rumors granted, but I'd believe it of her sooner than I'd believe it of him.

      As far as threats, Trump has said precious little and done nothing; the liberal globalist conspiracy has said far worse and is acting on it to shut down dissent and punish enemies.

      If you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it.

    25. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The KKK is a christian organization. Very much so. Everything they say, all the hate they spew, are their genuine religious beliefs. They belief all "inferior" races are the offspring of Cain, punished by being marked by God and sent off into the wilderness to be shunned and persecuted for all eternity. They weren't even the 100th Christian group to believe that interpretation of Cain and Abel.

      Sounds like if the law is equally applied, they would be protected by section 319.

    26. Re:Well then... by dugancent · · Score: 1

      Political parties are a crutch for people who can't think for themselves.

      --
      SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
    27. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mod this bullshit down. Please.

      Here is the actual law:
      http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93

      It is nothing like what the disinformation shills would have you believe. It is quite reasonable.

    28. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Not that Russia and China are great, their data will likely have to be encrypted

      Why? To detect tampering? (If so, that's overkill.) Because archive.org? It archives things that are _available to the public_. Any sensitive information in their archive was _already_ available to the public. That's how they ended up with it!

    29. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A torrent swarm has neither a performance nor an availability SLA. (Not to mention the fact that almost noone is capable of seeding a dataset that's larger than 100TB. )

    30. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Obama just increased surveillance, sanctioned the murder of citizens without trial, and refused to pardon Snowden with a weak excuse.

    31. Re:Well then... by tlhIngan · · Score: 3, Informative

      It is simply a marketing tactic. Canada is not exactly an ideal spot to locate such a backup in any case given their hate speech legislation and tactic of slapping very heavy fines on people who might have offended one of an infinite number of gender pronoun protected groups.

      Actually, it's not hate speech legislation. It's inciting hatred legislation. Our hate speech laws target recruitment of other people to incite harm to a group.You can threaten to harm someone, and that's a law unto itself (assault), but no matter how disgusting it is, unless you're trying to get others to join you, it's not hate speech.

      You are free to be as racist as you want, and to shout it to the world. One person did, and while hate charges were considered, they did not apply. He was just charged with simple assault.

      Likewise, you can discriminate against gays but as long as you're not telling others to harm them, you're fine.

      That's the two key elements to the law - first, you have to incite others to join you, and second, you have to be threatening to harm. Just saying "I hate (gays|Jews|Chinese)" isn't hate speech, and even saying "I hate (gays|Jews|Chinese) and think they should be killed" isn't hate. But saying "I hate (gays|Jews|Chinese), and we should form a group to kill all of them" is hate speech because you're inviting others to harm.

    32. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess if a nobel peace prize winning leader of the free world vs Stephen Harper didn't lure her back to the USA then cest la vie...

      She just was probably destined for canada regardless of who was president.

    33. Re:Well then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      So the Ruskys can't find anything in the dataset critical of 'fearless leader', more correctly, so they can't tell which server it indirectly came from when they look at the data (at least without extensive traffic analysis).

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    34. Re: Well then... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter what the law says.

      In practice, if you are charged with 'hate speech' in Canada, you are broke even if you clear yourself.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    35. Re:Well then... by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      A few years back I would have said New Zealand too. Back in 1987 New Zealand enacted strong anti-nuclear legislation even though they knew there would be sanctions by the US and the UK. The legislation still stands. It has been rumoured the US knew about the French Governments bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in the Port of Auckland in advance and chose not to say anything. Today that bombing would be regarded as a terrorist act. Now its part of "5 eyes" I really doubt the same commitment to independence is there, particularly with the current Prime Minister who values his photos with him playing Golf with Obama. On the plus side his opinion of Trump is not high. New Zealand has taken some unpopular stances within the UN, for example trying to remove the "veto" rights that the US/Russia/China,France/UK have in the security council. Unfortunately "Kim Dotcom" has shown the US has managed to gain unacceptable levels of influence back with the NZ government, as has its recent willingness to adopt the more draconian US copyright and patent laws, these being particularly detrimental in the area of Health care. However, it is located a long way from anywhere, it power generation is not dependant on fossil fuels , and it a highly tolerant peaceful country.

    36. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is amazing what a Canadian can learn from reading Slashdot. You can literally live your entire life in Canada (as a vast, vast majority of the population does) without even realizing that Canada has perfectly reasonable hate-speech laws that are apparently abused to no end to stifle free speech. You can say whatever you want, listen to others say whatever they want, and not even be afraid of the consequences because you, nobody you know, and nobody you have ever heard of has ever suffered even the slightest of consequences for it and because the law very clearly state that such speech is protected.

      But then you those people from south of the border, who think outlandish things like that Canada has states and must abide by UK law, inform you that the laws in Canada are draconian and often abused. And they provide as evidence the assertion that Canada's laws rival that of Muslim countries. Makes you envy gool ol' America where the only reason a person might need to watch what they say is out of fear that somebody might get angry and feel the need to defend themselves with a semiautomatic assult weaper--err, defense weapon.

    37. Re: Well then... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "It is amazing what a Canadian" Cite please.

    38. Re: Well then... by Layzej · · Score: 1

      The KKK is a christian organization. Very much so. Everything they say, all the hate they spew, are their genuine religious beliefs.

      Good point. Very weak law where even the KKK is protected.

    39. Re:Well then... by blueg3 · · Score: 1

      To detect tampering? (If so, that's overkill.)

      It's not just overkill, it's ineffective. Encryption is to create confidentiality: making an unauthorized party unable to obtain the information contained in the message. Encrypting a public database is worthless. If you're making it publicly accessible, there are no unauthorized parties. (This is different from encrypting the data transmissions of users, which is done to prevent third parties from learning what data is being accessed by a particular user.)

      What you'd want to prevent unauthorized tampering is authenticity and integrity controls, like digital signatures.

    40. Re:Well then... by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 2

      Except that's not correct: In Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892 at 902, the Supreme Court said hate propaganda denotes any expression that is "intended or likely to circulate extreme feelings of opprobrium and enmity against a racial or religious group".[6] The Supreme Court of Canada, by a bare 4-3 plurality, upheld the constitutionality of section 319 in R. v. Keegstra [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.[7] New Brunswick's Human Rights Act[38] forbids discrimination upon various grounds which depend upon the circumstances. An adjudicator (Board of Inquiry) may order a respondent "inter alia" to compensate a complainant "for any consequent emotional suffering, including that resulting from injury to dignity, feelings or self-respect, in such amount as the Board considers just and appropriate". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    41. Re: Well then... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      The KKK had a cross burning not far from here some years ago. They did have to do it in a vacant lot rather then in front of a houseful of black people, but no-one threatened them or tried to prosecute them.
      I live in the bible belt and there is tons of hate speech uttered by the good Christians, none of which is prosecuted.
      There has also been a flurry of flyers full of hate being distributed, stuck on telephone poles etc since Trump was elected. Pisses a lot of people off but the police simply say that it is legal and nothing will be done.
      Where this meme of Canada having such extreme hate speech laws comes from, I don't know, but it seems to be more of the political bullshit that if you repeat a lie often enough, it'll make it true. Shame that it seems to work for so many.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    42. Re: Well then... by dryeo · · Score: 1

      I'm a Canadian and agree with the AC. See lots of hate speech, even the KKK having cross burnings on occasion and no one gets prosecuted or even seriously threatened with prosecution.
      We also don't usually throw people in jail for speech like our American neighbours who have so many workarounds for that pesky "Congress will make no laws" thing that politicians routinely seriously want to execute foreign journalists and if an American threatens national security through speech, they can be executed. Seems in America the Constitution only means what the Supreme Court says it means rather then the very clear words it is written in.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    43. Re:Well then... by tsotha · · Score: 2

      Who? Name names. Anyone I could possibly have heard of?

    44. Re:Well then... by tsotha · · Score: 1

      If I were a Republican in Congress I'd introduce a bill requiring people who made such promises to make every effort to fulfil them. Of course it would never pass or survive a court challenge, but it would be fun.

    45. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let me get this straight... are you upset because you think the Archive are just like all the screaming liberals or because you think they will actually follow through?

      The dissonance, it hurts.

    46. Re: Well then... by Mean+Variance · · Score: 1

      Article source, the CBC.

      "Steyn, at the moment, is effectively being tried, by a quasi-judicial panel in Vancouver, for insulting Islam. ...
      Currently, it is hearing a complaint about Steyn's book from Mohamed Elmasry, head of the Canadian Islamic Congress."

      http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/f...

    47. Re:Well then... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      You are free to be as racist as you want, and to shout it to the world. One person did, and while hate charges were considered, they did not apply [ctvnews.ca]. He was just charged with simple assault.

      Seriously? That's even worse. He was charged with "assault" - a word which, everywhere else in the world, implies physical violence - for *saying* something. That's the stupidest thing I've heard in...well, in the last 45 minutes, but most of those things were said by moronic teenagers on the internet, not the legislated code of laws of a purportedly civilized country.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    48. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Iceland is a pretty good choice given that their Pirate Party holds 15% of the seats in the parliament.
      While the Icelandic party focuses mainly on anti-corruption they still care about freedom of information and Internet neutrality.

      Since there are so many misconceptions about the Pirate Party's stance on things it might be a good idea to check wikipedia
      (Especially people claiming that they are content creators appears to be very vocal without knowing jack shit about the party politics.)

    49. Re: Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No advocating genocide?

      No advocating hatred?

      Fuck off

    50. Re: Well then... by Layzej · · Score: 1
      That article is from 2008. Guess what? "The Ontario Human Rights Commission ruled that it did not have the jurisdiction to hear the complaint. The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal dismissed the complaint 10 October 2008.[14] The Canadian Human Rights Commission dismissed the complaint on 26 June 2008."

      Sounds like the law is working.

    51. Re:Well then... by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act?

      Congress.
      You misspelled Congress.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    52. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, they better not store a copy of the Bible in their servers in Canada. Something about homosexuality being bad will offend someone, somewhere, and cause the Tribunal to seize their servers. What ever happened to that off-shore data storage place?

    53. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Normally, yes, the Netherlands would be a good spot. Unfortunately, they've taken to levying heavy fines against their politicians who express what turned out to be surprisingly mundane anti-immigration views.

    54. Re:Well then... by davecb · · Score: 1

      Canada is nearby, speaks almost the same dialict of English and even shares the same timezones, so you can have a meeing during working hours (;-))

      While I'm biased in favor of Canada, I strongly recommend Ireland and Canada to US companies which might want to have some of their business based outside of the U.S. (for example, Google) After that I've had good luck working with folks in Israel, Singapore and India, modulo problems with accents.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    55. Re:Well then... by davecb · · Score: 1

      Apprehended assault is legalese for what most people would call threatening to beat the shit out of someone. Incitement to assault is asking other folks to help.

      --
      davecb@spamcop.net
    56. Re:Well then... by epine · · Score: 1

      Seriously? That's even worse. He was charged with "assault" - a word which, everywhere else in the world, implies physical violence - for *saying* something.

      Says the man who's never heard of a dead Danish cartoonist he really missed. No wait, he's still alive, because sensible people took all those verbal threats seriously.

      I realize the connection here is somewhat abstract. If this proves too hard for you, I suggest you start by watching the movie Robocop.

    57. Re: Well then... by kenh · · Score: 1

      Which is exactly what Hillary's position was/is back in 2005

      http://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/...

      --
      Ken
    58. Re:Well then... by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 1

      Why didn't they start this years ago when Obama extended and expanded the Patriot Act?

      Probably because:
        - Servers in the US have First Amendment protection
        - Servers in other countries have whatever protection - or restrictions - the other countries have.

      In particular:
        - Moving certain data (such as encryption software) from the US to other countries may violate US export laws. (Backing up a server in the US to a server outside the US is more clearly an export than serving in the US something that was downloaded in the US.)
        - Storing certain data - such as personal information, NAZI propaganda, or criticism of various governments - may be illegal in various countries.

      So setting up a backup in some other country was probably perceived as more risk than leaving the data solely in the US under Obama, while the perceived risk to the data under Trump may be enough to move the volunteers to take on the extra trouble .

      (If Brewster hasn't commented on this by then, I'll try to remember to ask him the next time I see him. But that's probably most of a year away...)

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    59. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Netherlands seems to have a pretty good handle on civil liberties.

      Not for long. Just this week, they banned certain pieces of clothing from being worn in public.

      Fitting captcha: discover

    60. Re:Well then... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "Assault" usually means a credible threat of physical violence. "Battery" is the actual violence. You don't have to actually shoot someone to be convicted of assault with a deadly weapon; pointing it and threatening to shoot is quite enough.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    61. Re:Well then... by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      All I know about this particular incident is from the link the parent provided, but that doesn't seem to be the case - nothing indicates he had a weapon, or acted physically aggressive. The description most often used in the article is "tirade".

      The man can be heard in the video shouting a wide range of racist insults, and at one point, he even raises his fist in a salute and shouts: "White power!" At another moment in the video, the man pulls out his phone and stands directly in front of Duhra.

      It really does seem like he was charged with assault for a "racist tirade", which isn't entirely unbelievable, given it happened in Canada.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    62. Re:Well then... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never heard of Rush Limbaugh?

    63. Re:Well then... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Standing directly in front of someone can constitute a threat, under some circumstances, particularly if it's with the intention to restrict someone's ability to leave. I don't know nearly enough to judge this situation, and I've found that when someone is pulling an example of the law acting like an ass it's more likely than not that they're misstating the situation to serve their agenda. There's tort reform and the woman whose McDonald's cup collapsed in normal operation, spilling unexpectedly hot coffee on her, and was denied the reimbursement of medical expenses McDonald's had offered to other people in her situation. There's the bakers who had to pay a large sum of money for launching an internet harassment campaign against the lesbians they'd previously insulted while refusing their business.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    64. Re:Well then... by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      http://www.politifact.com/trut...

      Obama actually had a position stating that he would not vote for the FISA amendments act until telecom immunity was removed. When the vote came before the Senate, he voted for it, and then changed his web site to remove that section. He flip flopped quite a bit on surveillance from the time of his campeign to when he took office.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    65. Re:Well then... by sims+2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah I noticed that. I wasn't happy with that but I was also disappointed to find neither of the presidential candidates this year wanted to do anything about it.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
  3. What a bunch of knee-jerk reactionist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    retards

    1. Re: What a bunch of knee-jerk reactionist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're so brave.

    2. Re:What a bunch of knee-jerk reactionist bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donald J. Trump Verified account
      @realDonaldTrump

      Nobody should be allowed to burn the American flag - if they do, there must be consequences - perhaps loss of citizenship or year in jail!

  4. Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by Baldrson · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you have a domain name under which you have a lot of content -- an example is kuro5hin.org -- and, after a decade or so you find yourself impoverished and stressed to the point that you can't renew the domain registration (as did Rusty Foster), a domain squatter jumps on it and holds it hostage for thousands of dollars. When that happens, frequently even "The Wayback Machine" is told to deep-six the archived content by the simple expedient of placing a robots.txt file in the home directory of the hijacked domain. "The Wayback Machine" then dutifully removes public access to the content. OH but the fun doesn't stop there! So now let's say you fork over the ransom money to the domain squatter, get the domain name back and remove the robots.txt. Of course "The Wayback Machine" then restores public access to all those articles... right?

    WRONG!

    archive.org does keep it stored and it is accessible to those with insider status, but no more public access EVER.

    There really is value in hoarding history and if you can get away with it by doing it "on accident" all the better!

    1. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by sims+2 · · Score: 2

      How much does insider status cost? I've run into that problem more than once.

      --
      Minimum threshold fixed. Thanks!
    2. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any kind of centralised organisation is never a truly safe place to store this stuff, just like everything else on the internet we need to work towards decentralisation to make it inert to politically changing climates.

    3. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by HiThere · · Score: 2

      The trouble with a decentralized storage is finding the stuff. Search engines only help so much. And for this application you want to find the historical stuff, guarantee that it's not fake, and hide where it is coming from. Not an easy problem.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    4. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just plain wrong. They follow robots.txt and will not scrape if forbidden. However, already scraped data is not deleted and is marked for public access 120 years after the robots.txt is picked up. Additionally, if you remove a robots.txt block, they will put the information back up when the crawler notices the file is missing. The length of time that takes, however, is highly dependent on the popularity of the website.

    5. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      even "The Wayback Machine" is told to deep-six the archived content by the simple expedient of placing a robots.txt file in the home directory of the hijacked domain. "The Wayback Machine" then dutifully removes public access to the content.

      This happened to me. The company that hosts my homepage added a robots.txt file without my permission. (They claimed it was a helpful security measure.) As a result, the Wayback Machine archive of my homepage disappeared, and it was not immediately restored when I removed the robots.txt file. Nevetheless, the Wayback Machine archive was eventually restored, but it didn't happen until (if I remember correctly) years after I removed the robots.txt file.

      I have a foggy memory of submitting a request to have my homepage crawled after I removed the robots.txt file. I don't know if my request was responsible for the Wayback Machine archive being restored.

    6. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just download the dump for kuro5hin & hack something together to archive-dive. It's linked offa the relevant subreddit.

    7. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Freenet solves all of those problems, and is reasonably anonymous as well (especially uploads). ot very fast, but neither is the wayback machine. Sadly, it doesn't make any retention promises, which is fundamental to an archive.

      I'm not sure you could make a service with no central control, and also with infinite retention, with today's technology - the storage needs would be unbounded.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    8. Re:Who Will Protect the Internet Archive Itself? by sciengin · · Score: 1

      I think Freenet and GnuNet are stillbirth. Even after decade(s) of work they are nowhere near useful.
      On the other hand IPFS combines the power of cryptography and Key based routing in the form of one huge BitTorrent swarm where every file and node is reachable through their SHA-hashkey.
      As long as one node (be it PC, server, or handheld) has the file, the file is safe.
      And since the names of the files are based on cryptographic hashes, it is impossible to replace, lets say myhomepage/index.html with /myhomepage/goatse.html.

      Its still in beta, 0.45 IIRC, but already pretty fast.

  5. Canada too close... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada is too close and could be swayed by Trump under pressure. I'd rather a country or Asia or Europe with fewer immediate ties hold the backup copy.

    Switzerland would probably be a safer place from Trump's reach.

    1. Re:Canada too close... by tomhath · · Score: 4, Funny

      Nah. Put it in Mexico; it will be protected by a big wall.

    2. Re:Canada too close... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Canada is too close

      A good point.
      It's like the late Weimar Republic creating a backup in Austria.

    3. Re:Canada too close... by sit1963nz · · Score: 1

      They could even use Oil from Texas to turn it into a Fire Wall.

  6. Is Canada Better? by slashkitty · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's going to have to be in all in french now, right? And, aren't some of their harassment laws much worse? Some of this internet archive certainly offends some minority.

    --
    -- these are only opinions and they might not be mine.
    1. Re:Is Canada Better? by Freischutz · · Score: 1

      It's going to have to be in all in french now, right? And, aren't some of their harassment laws much worse? Some of this internet archive certainly offends some minority.

      True enough. Apparently some of the Internet Archive's content offends human orangutang hybrids.

    2. Re:Is Canada Better? by BlindMaster · · Score: 1

      It's going to have to be in all in french now, right? And, aren't some of their harassment laws much worse? Some of this internet archive certainly offends some minority.

      Mind elaborate on "harassment laws much worse"?

    3. Re:Is Canada Better? by x0ra · · Score: 1

      We don't have anything close to the strength 1st Amendment.

    4. Re:Is Canada Better? by NatasRevol · · Score: 0

      That's more because the human orangutan hates the first amendment. Half of his tweets decry the use of the first amendment.

      And if you hate the first amendment, then you hate freedom. And America.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    5. Re:Is Canada Better? by doconnor · · Score: 2

      The Charter of Rights is close to the strength of the 1st amendment.

      The main difference is section 1 of the Charter which is "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." The allows us do things like limit political donations.

      We also have a hate speech law, but it is applied only in extraordinary cases and most prosecutions go allow the way to the supreme court.

    6. Re:Is Canada Better? by Nemyst · · Score: 2

      The bilingual requirement is only for governments and companies making business in the province of Quebec. It does not force companies to translate anything if they're not going to open shop there. Hell, many governmental institutions outside of Quebec and businesses (both in and outside of Quebec) don't follow those rules and nothing happens. I'm never quite sure why Americans are so quick to hate on bilingualism when there's almost as much Spanish being spoken in the US as French in Canada, proportionally speaking (and Spanish is growing, unlike French). You guys were literally built on immigration, and not all of that came from Britain, far from it.

      As for free speech, yes Canadian law is stricter, but it's specifically to protect against libel or hate speech. There has not been any significant change in what courts consider to be "hate speech"; the definition is very narrow and basically covers things like the KKK or Nazism. Libel has to be ruled upon by courts as well, and means that the claims were intended to harm and were not truthful (facts cannot be libel) in the first place: they have no place on an archive anyway.

    7. Re:Is Canada Better? by Nemyst · · Score: 1

      Does it really matter when the courts seem to be entirely ready to ignore the constitution anyway?

    8. Re:Is Canada Better? by Straif · · Score: 1

      The Charter of rights is no where near as strong as the 1st amendment.

      While the 1st amendment protects all speech, including hate speech, with the limited exception of direct calls for action (incitement) or libel/slander laws, our Charter gives lots of wiggle room for people who are merely offended, even if what was said was 100% true, to bring the speaker/writer in front of the kangaroo court system of our Human Right's Commissions. The HRCs are designed for convictions, not honest airing of facts, and place so many limits on the defendant as to make sure their nearly 100% conviction rate stays in place.

      HRCs regularly stretch 'trials' over years and while the plaintiff's costs are 100% covered the defendant is on the hook for every penny spent on their defense. At the end, the plaintiff receives whatever fines the HRC imposes (free money since they had to spend none of their own to effectively sue someone) and the defendant, on top of their already staggering legal fees, must now pay an often exorbitant fine.

      At one point the primary user of the HRC system was one of their own lawyers who filed multiple suits (few if any of which involved a targeted group of which he was a member) and made over $50,000 in just a couple years off of fines.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    9. Re: Is Canada Better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're actually insane if you believe that the Charter comes anywhere close to the 1A.

    10. Re: Is Canada Better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldnt want to live anywhere they outlawed nazis or the kkk.

  7. Good Idea but... by tomkost · · Score: 1

    Great idea, but not sure Canada is all that safe. Trump or some other government entity could easily coerce Canada into seizing the servers. Better to put backups in several out of the way places around the world and not even disclose where they are.

    1. Re:Good Idea but... by johanw · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about Russia?

    2. Re:Good Idea but... by tomkost · · Score: 1

      It would not be a bad choice. Servers are pretty cheap. I doubt you even have to pay to keep them always on. If you remote backup 1x/week, it's probably good enough. Just the idea that there could be 4-5 backups in unknown places would keep the wolves at bay or allow recovery in worst case scenario.

    3. Re:Good Idea but... by elrous0 · · Score: 2

      Canada and the UK have already been passing Orwellian internet surveillance and anti-free-speech laws on their own just fine without any influence from Trump. Moving the Internet Archive to Canada over concerns about possible libel laws and oppression is like responding to a fear of increased crime in your neighborhood by moving to Detroit.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    4. Re:Good Idea but... by tomkost · · Score: 1

      Yes, my point exactly.

    5. Re:Good Idea but... by smooth+wombat · · Score: 0

      Sure, why not Russia. It's not as if Putin has ever shut down newspapers, radio, tv stations or other independent media because they didn't sing the tune Putin wanted them to.

      I don't think you could find a better place to store a repository of internet web pages, some of which might contain information Putin finds objectionable because they show the facts of his corruption and abuse of power. What could possibly go wrong?

      --
      We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
    6. Re:Good Idea but... by unixisc · · Score: 2

      All the anti-US stuff, put it on the Russian mirrors, and all the anti-Putin stuff, put it on US mirrors. What could possibly go wrong?

      Actually, the whole story is funny - the internet archive making a copy of itself to put on another server. That's YUUUUUUUUUUGE!!!

    7. Re:Good Idea but... by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Great idea, but not sure Canada is all that safe.

      It's not. We have expanding definitions of "hate speech" something that the previous government was reducing. And we don't have anything close to 1st amendment protections on speech. Canada has "speech which is permitted by law." Which is very similar to many european countries. Putting it in Canada is just asking for trouble, and I say that as a Canadian.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  8. paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really to protect from Trump? I'm not a supporter, but the paranoid reactions to his presidency are just insane. If that truly is the reason, it is just nuts.

    1. Re:paranoia by k6mfw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Seems reasonable, Trump is nuts.

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    2. Re:paranoia by sinij · · Score: 1

      Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that nobody is after you.

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

      Not really. I mean is Trump likely to censor this sort of material or delete it? Probably not.

      However, Trump isn't a big fan of complete freedom of speech. He has made many threats against various newspapers and media outlets for reporting on him in a way that he doesn't deem fair. He has threatened to make libel laws stronger and have content he considers offensive removed.

      But, the supreme court will block his more extreme actions right? The current supreme court, probably; let's not forget, he's threatened to populate the supreme court with several new yes men. We could easily end up with a supreme court who is in favor of ignoring parts of the constitution- or likely to interpret it in a Trumpish way.

      Chances are, this is a big fuss over nothing, that Trump won't do all that. But he has made threats, and that's enough of a warning to backup our digital heritage whilst we can... just in case. Maybe Trump won't do anything silly, and maybe we'll get a democrat next time who wants to burn the internet's books. Who knows, we had a warning call and we reacted before it was too late.

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

      So was Hillary. They should have done this years ago but they're blowhards.

    5. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The candidate has proposed jail for flag burning, libel suits for reporting the news, revoking citizenship of protesters, that conflict of interest laws do not apply to the POTUS, etc. Nothing is insane.

      What's insane is that you seem to think none of these things are signs that an unreasonable and unaccountable President may abuse his power categorically in unforseen ways.

    6. Re:paranoia by johanw · · Score: 1

      Nah, I don't think Trump is after me. Hillary, on the other hand, got so much bribes, eh, I mean campaign donations, from Hollywood, that I'm not so sure about her. The RIAA might be after me for down,loading a lot of movies.

    7. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hillary never tweeted that flag burners should have their US citizenship revoked.

      Hillary was bad in many ways. Trump is far worse in almost every single one of those ways, plus he has an extensive list of novel ways in which he is deplorable.

      Stop with the false equivalencies.

    8. Re:paranoia by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Or, you know, libel is actually libel. If what is reported can be verified, then there's no issue of libel. Or is all the "fake news" that Facebook is concerned about imaginary now too?
      And please cite where he'd "revoke citizenship" of a protestor. Perhaps you mean an ISIS defector?

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    9. Re:paranoia by sinij · · Score: 1

      I personally don't like absolutes like "Trump is after me". Instead I like to think in abstracts, like "Lizard people are after me". This makes practicing op-sec more entertaining, and coincidentally would also make me safe against Trump.

    10. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And please cite where he'd "revoke citizenship" of a protestor. Perhaps you mean an ISIS defector?

      https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/803567993036754944

      Wake the fuck up.

    11. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Hillary was the co-sponsor of the "Flag Protection Act of 2005." "The law would have prohibited burning or otherwise destroying and damaging the US flag with the primary purpose of intimidation or inciting immediate violence or for the act of terrorism. It called for a punishment of no more than one year in prison and a fine of no more than $100,000; unless that flag was property of the United States Government, in which case the penalty would be a fine of not more than $250,000, not more than two years in prison, or both."

      Stop with the uneducated comments.

    12. Re:paranoia by unixisc · · Score: 0, Troll

      Flag burners should be deported to anti-US countries. Like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, PA, Syria, Libya, Pakistan, Bangladesh and so on. There are millions of people elsewhere in the world who'd love to come here - for the right reasons. Expel all America-hating Muricans, and give those people who want to come in J1 visas in their place.

    13. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, he was twitting about flag burning, and not all protest is flag burning, so I suppose technically that makes cyberchondriac's indignation correct on some level.

      Not that it makes that tweet any less horrifying.

    14. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary tried to pass a bill that would have criminalized flag burning when she was in the Senate.
      She also supported her husband's attempts to criminalize flag burning in the 90s.
      But, hey, she just wanted to send people to jail, right? That's definitely OK, because it wasn't as bad as saying that he thinks they should lose their citizenship be leave the country! Everyone knows American jails are better than anyplace else in the world, like Canada.

    15. Re:paranoia by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Hillary just gave weapons to ISIS and had them attack one of our ambassadors, nothing crazy like Trump.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    16. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should be asking why are these people so pissed at the gov that they're burning the flag and fix that. Rounding up people you don't like for concen....er deportation, does not fix the underlying problems. There very well could be a subject that arises during your lifetime that makes you pissed at the gov. Do YOU want to be subjected to deportation? And if you want to take the high road and state that you're such a good American that you'll support them come what may, then I can state that you are NOT a great American as you are letting tyranny take over, directly against the wishes of our founders. America is founded on the belief of protesting your government. Deporting or imprisoning people for exercising their first amendment rights is absolutely against the will of the founders and the Constitution itself. This even applies to your side. If you wanna call em niiggers, ragheads, and faggots then you go right ahead. We'd rather know who you are anyway so we can avoid you. THAT is what I spent 2 tours in Iraq for, not a colored piece of cloth.

    17. Re:paranoia by gatfirls · · Score: 1

      Trump convinced a large voting block that Hillary was tantamount to a war criminal despot who was literally looking to abolish the second amendment and legalize and support 'day before due date abortions' among other things people would gladly regurgitate as if they personally know it as fact.

      Trump does need the power of the rest of the government to do a lot of things but he has something much more powerful: Simple words, lies and fear. It is not far fetched that could rile up constituencies around the country to force the hand of their elected representatives to support whatever insanity he spews. I'm sure there was a lot of level headed people in the government who absolutely abhorred the internment camps but went along to get along. Or a more recent example, when GWB was beating the war drum for Iraq opponents were called out as weak bellied traitors who hated america.

      Paranoia with Trump is completely warranted because he is a completely loose cannon beholden to no one and continues to prove it so with insane statements like Hillary getting million of illegal votes simply because he lost the majority. I mean let that sink in: Our elected president elect is spewing baseless conspiracy theories 2 months before he takes office as a retort to not being liked the most.

    18. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hillary vowed to nominate justices with political activism as a standard. Thus far Trump has promised to nominate justices in the mold of Scalia that would be constitutionalists. Yes, that's a political point of view to choose judges with strict interpretations of the Constitution, but it's also the least politicized outcome. Hillary wanted judges to look at the substance of the case from a Progressive vantage point, and ignore the actual legal basis.

      Courts need to rule on law and not emotion. Especially the Supreme Court that sets legal precedents that last for decades. A prime example being the the recent challenge to Obama's executive order on immigration. The left leaning justices wrote opinions in support and stated their reasons was because it was the right thing to do. Yet the case was about overreach of the President in regards to separation of powers. Had the court upheld the policy, that would have greatly expanded Presidential authority, not just in that case, but in all future cases. Cases in which the left may actually wish it go the other way when they do not have a President in power.

    19. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Give people what they want. A reasonable proposition.

      Give people that don't like the luxuries of western society and the opportunities living in the US provides a one way ticket out. Replace them with people that value what the expats despise and let them in.

    20. Re:paranoia by Nostalgia4Infinity · · Score: 1

      What you probably do not know is that a decade ago, Hillary Clinton called for similar harsh punishments. Then a United States Senator for New York, Clinton co-sponsored the Flag Protection Act of 2005. Senator Robert Bennett, a Republican from Utah, introduced the bill to the Senate in October 2005. “The flag of the United States is a unique symbol of national unity and represents the values of liberty, justice and equality,” the bill said. “Abuse of the flag,” it continued, “causes more than pain and distress to the overwhelming majority of the American people and may amount to fighting words or a direct threat to the physical and emotional well-being of individuals.” If intended to incite violence, the bill stated, destroying a flag went beyond political speech and therefore was not protected under the First Amendment, as the Supreme Court had ruled it was in 1989 and 1990. For “any person” who burns a flag or causes one to be burned in order to incite violence, the bill called for a maximum fine of $100,000 or one year imprisonment, or both. If the desecrated flag belonged to the U.S. government, the maximum penalties would rise to $250,000 and two years behind bars.

    21. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is this insightful?

      Trump won you fucking mental children crybabies. Grow the fuck up.

    22. Re:paranoia by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Trump drives certain people nuts.

      FTFY

      Huh .... what an odd coincidence ....

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    23. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      retard

    24. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But not as nuts as Kanye and he will be the next president.

    25. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shuffling your problems off to another location does not fix the problem that made those problems in the first place. They will come back to bite you.

    26. Re:paranoia by guacamole · · Score: 1

      Paranoia with Trump is completely warranted because he is a completely loose cannon beholden to no one and continues to prove it so with insane statements like Hillary getting million of illegal votes simply because he lost the majority.

      I beg to differ. Trump did not make an insane statement regarding the illegal votes. What he really did on Monday was very skillfully troll the media using a tiny twitter post in revenge for the likes of Stein campaign questioning the integrity of the vote in three crucial Midwestern states that Trump won. Most people don't understand that Trump is a master of trolling. He feeds on it. He took five minutes to post that twitt, and then CNN spent the WHOLE DAY talking about it. It's a win-win for Trump. That's exactly the strategy that won him the republican nomination and got him elected a president.

    27. Re:paranoia by dywolf · · Score: 1

      Reality calling.
      It misses you.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    28. Re:paranoia by dywolf · · Score: 1

      and she was wrong for it, and many liberals opposed her support of the bill, and applauded when it failed to pass.
      "Hillary did it too" is not a defense.

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    29. Re:paranoia by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Obviously his tweets are random musings that in no equate to policy or introduction of a bill, he often thinks hypotheticals outloud: "perhaps" this or that.
      You think Hillary would've been any better? She actually sponsored an anti-flag burning bill in 2005 that proposes a jail term twice as harsh. You wake up.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    30. Re:paranoia by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Who's the reality denier?

      Email chains not only detail Steven's position but planned movements on insecure server AKA handing information to terrorist.

      Here's a breakdown:
      http://www.thepoliticalinsider...

      Here's the federal FOIA confirmation:
      https://foia.state.gov/Search/...

      Here's the leaked confirmation:
      https://wikileaks.org/clinton-...

      Here's the documents that show she knew it was going to happen:
      http://www.judicialwatch.org/d...

      I have a special dislike for Clinton - she's a murderer, a liar, a thief and she covers for multiple sexual offenders. My feelings about Trump are very mixed - he doesn't fit with my vision overall but I like the promise of "swamp draining" I just don't like the idea of him replacing what gets weeded out with something else. Sometime you remove something and replace it with nothing and that's the best answer.

      Facts are the foundation of a rational opinion. I am not a member of the "feelings" party, nor am I a member of the "bomb them all" party, the two of which the lines tend to blur between. It's obvious you and AC are part of the "for the feelz" groups.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    31. Re:paranoia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Honestly, that's even scarier.

  9. trump worse than obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well. A fool and his money are soon parted.

    If fools believe that a Trump administration will try to censor 10 year old websites then, of course, ask these fools for donations.

    After all, after the open and respectful Obama administration and how obviously respectful Hillary Clinton would have been then of course we have to be concerned about what the evil Trump would do.

  10. That's cute. by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    How do they know Trump wont try and annex Canada during the next four years?

    1. Re:That's cute. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I don't think the Canadians would stand for such foolishness, given they've had opportunity to join the USA with special privileges for centuries and have so far declined... I'm guessing they will be building a wall to their south myself... A big wall with nice doors, and the USA will pay for it.... (grin)

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:That's cute. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 0

      I've never been more happy to be Canadian than I have since November 9th. I'm so profoundly grateful I do not live in the USA.

      Thanks great grandparents (who I never met)!!! You made a great decision.

    3. Re:That's cute. by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The next time Canada has a Harper and US has an Obama, will that still be your decision?

    4. Re:That's cute. by Frederic54 · · Score: 1

      Remember 1812? You want us to come down in DC and burn the white house, again?

      --
      "Science will win because it works." - Stephen Hawking
    5. Re:That's cute. by Howitzer86 · · Score: 1

      We've done worse.

    6. Re:That's cute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      By "us", you probably mean Canadians, since you said "come down" (not "come over"). For some reason Canadians are delusional in thinking they fought the War of 1812, which is ridiculous. The troops were from England. The "occupation" lasted 26 whole hours. The burnings were in response to some buildings we burnt down previously in Britain's colonies to the north of the U.S. (later renamed "Canada").

    7. Re:That's cute. by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

      Yes, that has been my decision for a long time.

      Recent events have just made it more emphatic.

    8. Re:That's cute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans are taught that they somehow won the war of 1812 (I married an American) not sure how anyone could believe that, since you know, there IS a Canada...

  11. Only now? by edibobb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That should have been done years ago. It's stupid to keep something unique, important, and easily duplicated in a single country. The "Trump" point is that some people think he's got a low regard for constitutional rights, and will pack the Supreme Court to this end. This could make it possible (and legal) for the government to effectively revise history by editing the archives.

    1. Re:Only now? by Kierthos · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Considering that the orange idiot thinks that burning a U.S. flag merits prison time or loss of citizenship, I'd say it's a given that he has a low regard for constitutional rights.

      --
      Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
    2. Re:Only now? by sinij · · Score: 1

      Yes, because thug-enforced safe spaces and opinions that are too traumatizing to be allowed for discussion is so much better.

      SJW-left has much bigger problem with freedom of speech than this.

    3. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't you mean Hillary? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_Protection_Act_of_2005

    4. Re:Only now? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      How much storage are we talking about anyway? A few thousand terabytes?

    5. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every time flag burning comes up, I think of all the cub scouts that will get sentenced to death or whatever for learning to dispose of damaged flags properly - by burning them.

      "Oh but the law would never be used that way" - every shithead liar ever.

    6. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shhh Trump is trolling him. Just let it happen its more amusing that way.

    7. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Burning a flag does nothing but spit on and insult those who died for it. Why do it? Don't say its for protesting because everyone knows it is not. Its a direct spit in the face for Veterans like myself who have served.

    8. Re:Only now? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      They were having some major budget problems preventing this. You're right though, this has been long overdue, and it should be in way more than just Canada. It should be on every continent; I'd even support sending the occasional backup to Antarctica. Now that I think about it, these guys deserve my money. I'm gonna start donating.

    9. Re:Only now? by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      Listen, if you find yourself to the right of Anthony Scalia, there's something wrong with your definition of 'patriotism'.

    10. Re:Only now? by networkBoy · · Score: 2

      ~15PB

      --
      whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
    11. Re:Only now? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      First decent semi-recent source I could find says 10 petabytes (10,000 terabytes) as of October 2012. I can't find any sorta graph, but I can just rough estimate a doubling in size every 18 months, Which gives me a ballpark guess of about 70PB.

    12. Re:Only now? by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      1PB = 1,000 (or 1024) TB, I meant to say...Stupid typos.

    13. Re:Only now? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Since when did a majority of American think flag burning is a good thing? I missed that part.

    14. Re:Only now? by bfpierce · · Score: 1

      You might have missed it in High School, but Constitutional questions aren't decided by a 'majority of Americans'.

    15. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when did "a majority of Americans" have any say over what "constitutional rights" are? I missed that part.

    16. Re:Only now? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      That's interesting. I saw an estimate to store 1PB for 1000 euro from 2014. I assume it probably is cheaper in 2016. Facebook is storing over 200PB. It's staggering to think about. I remember Washington University in St. Louis was upgrading to a 1 TB RAID setup back in the early 90's and it was going to cost around 100 thousand dollars. I just bought a 256GB thumb drive for about what 4 boxes of 5.25" Dual Density floppies used to cost me. It makes my head hurt to think about.

    17. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might have missed it in High School, but Constitutional questions aren't decided by a 'majority of Americans'.

      Wait, WHAT!? But that's not fair!

    18. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump isn't the one who proposed the Flag Protection Act of 2005 that proposed prison time and/or a fine for flag-burning.

    19. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that the orange idiot thinks that burning a U.S. flag merits prison time or loss of citizenship, I'd say it's a given that he has a low regard for constitutional rights.

      Misunderestimating republican presidents isn't wise. I'm skeptical you actually believe what you said about trump actually believing what he said. Irony...

    20. Re:Only now? by KeensMustard · · Score: 1

      Misunderestimating

      To clarify: do you mean:

      1. Under-Underestimating - underestimating, but not by enough?

      2. Over-Underestimating - underestimating by too much?

      3. Estimating : Estimating correctly? Or.. No, don't know what to do with that.

      Help please.

    21. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you want to say niigger and faggot so damned bad anyway? What is wrong with "safe spaces"?

    22. Re:Only now? by flargleblarg · · Score: 1

      1PB = 1,000 (or 1024) TB, I meant to say...Stupid typos.

      Sorry, but 1 PB = 1000 TB.

      1 PiB = 1024 TiB.

    23. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how you are concerned about the constitution all of a sudden after sucking Obama's dick for mandating people BUY a product (health insurance) which is unconstitutional itself.

    24. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      God you fell for that completely didn't you.

      Trolled by the president elect and have no clue you were. That's amazing.

      I wonder how obvious he will have to get before you lefties catch on?
      Maybe next he could come out in favor of breathing. And you would suffocate to prove him wrong.

    25. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That flag represents all of us friend, you shouldn't be specially offended as a veteran.

    26. Re:Only now? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      I note you didn't concede that Trump's comment is an affront to free speech.

      This makes me thing that either you're so in love with the guy that in your eyes he can do no wrong (Trump already told us that was the case) or you actually believe that his position is reasonable.

      The "but but but sjw" spluttering is just a distraction tactic. Possibly because you're ashamed of your opinion and don't want to post it here.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    27. Re:Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    28. Re:Only now? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Are you aware that Justice Scalia said the same thing? Where was the feigned indignation of the left when that happened?

      (There wasn't any)

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    29. Re: Only now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's great fodder for the anti-Trump movement, but you're mistaking what he says for what he will do. He said what he felt he had to say to get elected, and it worked. He's arguably a sociopathic narcissist. What happens now is anyone's guess.

  12. Canada, too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did they end up drinking more of the kool-aid than half of america?

  13. Surprised they aren't doing this already by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They should be keeping copies of the archive in multiple locations, along with parity files which can be used to validate potentially compromised and reconstruct corrupted data. That way if one location goes down or is destroyed (fires happen), you still have copies elsewhere. If one site gets hacked and the data changed, you can cross-reference the parity info with other sites to determine which is real and which is modified, and revert the changed data. Kinda like a worldwide ZFS or RAID 5.

    Trump makes for a convenient excuse. But given that they're literally keeping snapshots of history, they should already be taking these steps just to safeguard the integrity of the data.

    1. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      I concur. The "because Trump" part is just plain silly projection.

      But I was quite surprised to learn that they don't have a multi-continent presence. I would have assumed they had multiple copies located all around the globe. It is a pretty huge site with what I would assume is a large volume of traffic from around the globe.

    2. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by colin_faber · · Score: 2

      This is my feeling as well, however I've also aways had the feeling that the situation over there in archive land may not be so professional and seems to have grown up from a basement project. I would think that they would be better served emulating, or becoming part of the wikimedia foundation which has considerable experience (and qualified expertise) to deploy copies of the archive in many different foreign countries.

    3. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by Verdatum · · Score: 1
      They've had budget issues, including a fire in 2013 (although that did bring in plenty of donations, I don't know if it offset all the damages). Setting up tens of petabytes of storage that'll be approaching exabytes before we know it, and doing so in foreign countries, that ain't cheap.

      FWIW, all new archived items for the past few years are pushed up as bittorrents. So, so long as seeders stay up for everything, it'd technically be retrievable in the case it fell off the planet somehow.

    4. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trumpeteer detected.

    5. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by illtud · · Score: 1

      If you don't think Internet Archive have much expertise in data integrity and digital preservation, then you're not really following what they're doing.

    6. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by illtud · · Score: 1

      This is my feeling as well, however I've also aways had the feeling that the situation over there in archive land may not be so professional and seems to have grown up from a basement project.

      Brewster Kahle has just been awarded the Digital Preservation Coalition's first Fellowship Award tonight. The DPC and the "archive land" has more been thinking a lot more about digital preservation than you might imagine, and that community's idea of 'long term preservation' is a whole lot more rigorous than most any commercial thinking you'll encounter. They have smart people working there.

      Growing up from a 'basement project' is a good description of amazon, wikimedia and a whole lot of other disruptive ventures of the last 20 years, I wouldn't hold that against anybody. That they don't have oodles of cash to ensure multi-continent distributed content is a reflection of their funding, not of their lack of forethought. That they can leverage the anti-Trump sentiment to raise money to create the Canada copy is a smart move.

    7. Re:Surprised they aren't doing this already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because if you don't take every opportunity to denounce Trump, you support Trump. Even if it is stupid conjecture and not based on anything in reality.

      "You want to supersize those fries?"

      Fuck you, Trump Lover! ... On second thought... maybe that's a stupid way to go through life.

  14. Time... by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

    Time to build another wall! Make them pay for it too with an import tax on beaver pelts and maple syrup!

  15. Not with the Libs in power by dstyle5 · · Score: 2

    Not with the Liberals in power, Trudeau and Trump are far apart ideologically.

    Now if it was the dearly departed Lord Steven Harper was in power I would be much more concerned about this happening. As someone who voted for the Cons in the past but didn't this past election I can't see them getting into power anytime soon, they went off the rails in their last term in office and during the last election. The "barbaric cultural practices" garbage they proposed will haunt them for a long time to come.

    1. Re: Not with the Libs in power by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. One is pro TPP, pro surveillance state, pro dictators and the other is Trump. Too bad Trudeau was shamed into not attending Uncle Fidel's funeral eh?

  16. It all comes down to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "he Internet Archive Is Building a Canadian Copy To Protect Itself From Trump "

    It all comes down to raising money. I didn't bother with the link, but no doubt they want a "donation", and the fine print says "....to be used for what we believe is best...".

    It's like Jill "I love Castro" Stein, raising money for a recount that (a) changes nothing and (b) is already too late, even if it could change anything.

    She wants money. And if you look in the fine print for the "donations", she has no obligation to use it for anything other than JillStein.org

    It seems like the mention of Trump makes some people in to a Chump.

    1. Re:It all comes down to... by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      He's the bogeyman you can threaten everyone with. Liberals piss their drawers at the mention of his name. Experienced journalists tear up when they hear his name. I don't think anyone was this frightened of HItler.

    2. Re:It all comes down to... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone was this frightened of HItler.

      That's because you are either, Young and Stupid, or just REALLY Stupid.

  17. Is Canada immune ... by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 1

    ... from following the UK with its "new and improved" surveillance law?

    1. Re:Is Canada immune ... by sinij · · Score: 1

      If Stellaris taught me anything, is that most effective way to absorb upcoming civilization into my Galactic Lizard Empire is to build secret world government, harmonize policies across countries, establish puppet world government and then have it "voluntarily" join my empire as a a fresh source of slaves.

      Canada too will have mas surveillance because lizard people decided so.

  18. Backups are great! by Destoo · · Score: 1

    Damn. We're going to run out of floppies.

    I like it when a group knows what it's talking about.
    They are not saying "we'll just put it in the cloud and it will be safe forever!"

    --
    Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
    1. Re:Backups are great! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Hey, that will resurrect the flash memory industry, that has been dying ever since I left it. I mean, all the flash memory companies that I knew of - Numonyx (Intel), Spansion (AMD), just to name 2, have been eaten up by larger companies like Micron or Cypress. I'd love to get back a job like the one I had 10 years ago.

  19. With a USB-3.0 3TB drive for less than $100?... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would think a more decentralized solution would be in line. Home servers, or for the oppressed low cost ISP tier masses, "peer to peer"..., or for the really oppressed, "sneakernet".

    Having the internet archive in a single place, with any sort of centralized authority was a bad idea from the beginning. Centralized services are targets, end of story, game over.

  20. Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years ag by ageoffri · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The progressive elements have become nothing if predictable. It wasn't that long ago that Obama got the Nobel Peace prize simply for being elected President. Now we have the opposite but equal over-reaction with. Instead of Obama saving the world, we have Trump destroying it. I have no doubt that just like Obama didn't earn the Nobel Peace prize, Trump won't earn the terror his election has triggered.

    --
    -- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
  21. What's Trump Got To Do With It? by mveloso · · Score: 2, Informative

    Obama's the one that let the NSA capture all the communications in the US.

    If history has shown us anything, it's that both the left and the right will attempt to expunge information from archives...but the left does it on a bigger scale. Look a the Cultural Revolution under Mao, or the various programs under Lenin and Stalin. Heck, just look how the left in the US is rewriting history.

    1. Re:What's Trump Got To Do With It? by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, but that's a part of the consistent pattern. The Democrats use a need of the people to create enhanced government power. (Never mind whether it's a real need of the people, it just needs to be sold as one.) Then the Republicans take power and use that increased power for elitist ends. Then the Democrats take power and use a need of the people to create enhanced government power.....

      At no point in the cycle is the government power decreased, despite the rhetoric sometimes used by the Republicans.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:What's Trump Got To Do With It? by ADRA · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You can't call someone left or right if they're authoritarian. Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Tito, Caesar, William VIII, etc.. If someone makes a decision on how to run a nation, that's one voice. It isn't a movement (left/right are scales of popular belief in terms of social/economic freedoms). To call a single person (left/right) is almost entirely meaningless in the grand scheme of things, and calling a dictator anything but a dictator doesn't advance one's story.

      All dictators require control, and how one exercises that said control varies wildly based on their time in history and the levers necessary to exert control. That's the only real figure necessary for dictators. If a lever of control no longer exists, it falls apart. Romans and most earlier empires exerted control by marching huge armies at opposition. Later, European monarchs exerted control largely through social classes re-enforced by the nation's religion. In my poor home of Canada, they had programs to take aboriginal children from their parents to 'learn' the Canadian way of life. Yay, democracies! The pope is a dictator in his own right, though a dictator who's power to control has fallen significantly.

      "Heck, just look how the left in the US is rewriting history"
      I'm confused here. Can you give me some google juice on this? Specifically, I'd like to know when/where records were deleted / rewritten.

      --
      Bye!
    3. Re:What's Trump Got To Do With It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So Soros and all the tech giants that backed the Democrats, they're not elites?

    4. Re:What's Trump Got To Do With It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you seen/heard all the platitudes about Fidel Castro this week?

  22. How far is far left going to go? by rockabilly · · Score: 2

    Nothing to see here folks, other than unfounded paranoia.

    1. Re:How far is far left going to go? by Bodhammer · · Score: 2

      "Nothing to see here folks, other than unfunded paranoia."

      TFTFY

      --
      "I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
    2. Re:How far is far left going to go? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Calling the paranoia unfounded is unjustifiable. It may not happen, as campaign promises often aren't kept. Unfortunately, it often happens that the campaign promises I most wish would be forgotten are the ones that are kept, and the ones I don't care about, or even approve of, are forgotten.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:How far is far left going to go? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      TWOFIFTY

  23. I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by bobbied · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Don't let the door in that big beautiful wall hit you on the way out with all that data..

    Seriously? You are doing this because you are worried Trump might make you destroy your data or what? Where do folks get such foolishness into their heads.. I get the impression that, like the pending vote recounts going on what will accomplish nothing of importance (Trump will still be president come January), this is really just a scam to get attention, funding or both...

    BTW, you really SHOULD have multiple copies of your data already. If it's your company's life blood you had better have as many copies as you can afford to keep in varying geographic locations and an active program to keep said backups freshened, tested and ready to keep you in business should some natural, or man made disaster take out your primary business location. If you don't, you are stupid... More stupid than this little "Trump scares me" press release is.. Come on, you need a business continuity plan here, and not because of who's going to be president, but because the world is a dangerous place and you never know when the HQ server farm will end up a pile of ashes or spread out over a few square miles by a really strong wind.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, Trump said he was going to erase all the Deadhead bootleg tapes! Quick, to Canada!

    2. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by HiThere · · Score: 2

      They should have multiple copies of their data, but that takes cash. That said, Canada seems an extremely silly location to pick for their only backup. It was probably picked because it was cheap to access.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by unixisc · · Score: 1

      I wish Trump could deport all those clowns who said they'd leave. Not to Canada, but to Mexico, or better yet, Iran or Syria

    4. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

      They already cannot afford to backup everything on the Internet, if they had two copies of everything they backup, that would mean half as many sites could be backed up.

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    5. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, yet another reason why I'm thinking this press release is much ado about attention and nothing else.

      Likely just a couple of snowflakes who are melting into their boots because their candidate didn't win and now somebody else will be making decisions they don't like. Calm down, it's just change, and change is good, usually.

      Seriously, how much *real* affect can the president actually have on one's daily life anyway? In this country he/she is just 1/3rd of the system anyway. They are powerless to actually DO anything that congress and the courts don't approve of and EVERY member of the House must be re-elected every 2 years. If they really hose things up, we can at least stop them in 2 years by giving the house to the other party. Not to mention that the next Senate election at the same time will put 1/3rd of Senators on the chopping block. The voters will have their say soon enough if the republicans make a mess of this.

      Buckle up, take a deep breath and relax... It's going to be an interesting ride and should be fun to watch no matter what side of this you are on.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Then their business model needs to be adjusted accordingly...

      IF you cannot guarantee business continuity because it's too costly, then you must either adjust your business model to account for the costs, or admit to yourself that you are at risk. Data backups are a FUNDEMENTAL part of a risk management strategy for a company that makes their living selling data they collect. Surely they keep backups.... Preferably offsite ones. If that's too expensive, then they need to figure on making all the money they can now because they certainly are NOT a long term company as they claim to be, but have one foot in the grave and are just waiting to be pushed.

      A data company without offsite backups? That's like a surgeon who doesn't wash his hands and reuses the same tools without sanitizing them. It's called malpractice.... Surely they know better...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    7. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Yeah I too wish we could exile people for using their 1st amendment rights.

      That'll make America great again for sure.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:I'll move out of the country if Trump wins! by HiThere · · Score: 1

      You don't want to know how much "*real* affect can the president actually have on one's daily life". The main protection is that he's unlikely to have that as his goal. The executive has been accreting power ever since Lincoln. Probably before, but Lincoln was an inflection point. Currently the "imperial presidency" isn't an overstatement. The checks on his actions are minor, and easily overcome if he's determined.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  24. One little problem by Orgasmatron · · Score: 4, Interesting

    America is the only place in the world where it is legally permitted to criticize anyone and everyone.

    See, for example: The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws

    --
    See that "Preview" button?
    1. Re:One little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is the only place in the world where it is legally permitted to criticize anyone and everyone.

      Wrong Hate Crimes

    2. Re:One little problem by HiThere · · Score: 2

      I believe that there are many places that let you criticize anyone you choose, provided you don't do it in the local language. Has Canada, e.g., ever censored ANYTHING written in Swahili?

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:One little problem by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Informative

      Don't worry, Trump has already promised to fix that.

    4. Re:One little problem by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      America is the only place in the world where it is legally permitted to criticize anyone and everyone.

      See, for example: The creepy tyranny of Canada's hate speech laws

      That reminds me of a joke from the Bush era.

      American: "My country is free because we can stand in the middle of DC and call our leader an idiot".
      Iraqi: "So what. I can stand in the middle of Baghdad and call your leader an idiot".

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    5. Re:One little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      marvel.com is illegal in Canada. I hope the internet archive understands how restrictive free speech is in this country because they are letting themselves in for some serious legal issues up here. I won't even get into 100% fictional written stories that include characters under the age of 18 in sexual situations.

      Canadian Criminal Code, section 163:

      (1) Every one commits an offence who;
      (b) makes, prints, publishes, distributes, sells or has in his possession for the purpose of publication, distribution or circulation a crime comic.

      Just in case you think there's a weird definition of crime comic that doesn't include Marvel or DC or whatever...

      (7) In this section, “crime comic” means a magazine, periodical or book that exclusively or substantially comprises matter depicting pictorially
              (a) the commission of crimes, real or fictitious; or
              (b) events connected with the commission of crimes, real or fictitious, whether occurring before or after the commission of the crime.

    6. Re:One little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not go to the "horse's mouth" instead of some random blog:

      From your link:

      ... people being fined, prosecuted and hauled before official tribunals for expressing political opinions which the State has prohibited and criminalized.

      Actual Criminal Code of Canada
      http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-72.html#h-93

      You will note that the actual law is nothing like what your random blogger thinks it is.

      It is really quite reasonable. The law basically states that you cannot publicly incite hatred against any identifiable group. You can express such thoughts in private all you like, but when you publish a magazine whose content is "Kill all Hipsters!", then you have a problem.

      It is not creepy or tyrannical at all.

    7. Re:One little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It goes back at least as far as Reagan; he'd tell a very similar joke about himself.

    8. Re:One little problem by rastos1 · · Score: 1

      America is the only place in the world where it is legally permitted to criticize anyone and everyone.

      Yeah, in US everyone can say anything. And look what did that brought to you ...

    9. Re:One little problem by Orgasmatron · · Score: 1

      Nice switch. "incite hatred" is not the same as "incite violence". Anything negative, even true things, can be said to "incite hatred".

      Geert Wilders is currently on trial for allegedly violating a similar law. If that hasn't come to Canada yet, give it time.

      http://www.breitbart.com/londo...

      --
      See that "Preview" button?
    10. Re:One little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except Muslims, blacks, illegal immigrants ...

    11. Re:One little problem by richardkettle4 · · Score: 1

      Really? You have not travelled much have you?

    12. Re:One little problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *arms the drone*

  25. "because Trump" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is just fear-mongering to scare up donations

  26. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    . . .Trump won't earn the terror his election has triggered.

    Well, if you are financially secure, heterosexual caucasian male you probably have nothing to worry about,

  27. Put a copy on a deep space probe by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just in case Trump gets really mad and summons Nibiru.

  28. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by sinij · · Score: 1

    >>if you are financially secure

    Any further specification is superfluous and agenda-driven.

  29. Yeah? by MBGMorden · · Score: 3, Informative

    I've decided to build a giant dome with battery powered artificial "sunlight" as I heard Trump is going to outlaw the sun. I've also added some support braces into my home's roof in case the sky does actually fall, and I've heard a credible rumor that he may in fact be a transgendered succubus.

    Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want. Under a Trump presidency - some things will not go the way you want. That $15 minimum wage ain't happening and student loans for useless degrees aren't going to be forgiven. Overall though - things aren't going to change much.

    Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    1. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've decided to build a giant dome with battery powered artificial "sunlight" as I heard Trump is going to outlaw the sun. I've also added some support braces into my home's roof in case the sky does actually fall, and I've heard a credible rumor that he may in fact be a transgendered succubus.

      Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want. Under a Trump presidency - some things will not go the way you want. That $15 minimum wage ain't happening and student loans for useless degrees aren't going to be forgiven. Overall though - things aren't going to change much.

      Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.

      When you have the POTUS saying the flag burners should have their citizenship stripped and thrown in prison, there is absolutely nothing to be relaxed about.

      When the hell are people like you going to wake up? This isn't some random jackass spouting of crap on the web. This is the POTUS. How else are we supposed to take this? US presidents don't say shit like this, because that's the type of shit that's said in those other countries WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE. We don't threaten political rivals with incarceration. We don't threaten to remove citizenship for expressing free speech. We don't threaten people of a relgious faith with the idea of internet camps because they "might be a terrorist".

      But that seems to have changed now. We have a POTUS who's just fine with torture, with banning people for believing in a certain religion, with stripping citizenship for expressing free speech. Or wait...is he just joking? Well then, how the fuck are we supposed to know when he's serious? When he says "trust me"?

      Go ahead and keep thinking everything is just fine. Worked so well in Gemany and Italy until the shit hit the fan.

    2. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've decided to build a giant dome with battery powered artificial "sunlight" as I heard Trump is going to outlaw the sun. I've also added some support braces into my home's roof in case the sky does actually fall, and I've heard a credible rumor that he may in fact be a transgendered succubus.

      Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want. Under a Trump presidency - some things will not go the way you want. That $15 minimum wage ain't happening and student loans for useless degrees aren't going to be forgiven. Overall though - things aren't going to change much.

      Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.

      Shorter you: I'm a straight white man.

    3. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler

      Sorry, I didn't realize Trump was so fat.

    4. Re:Yeah? by rmckeethen · · Score: 1

      Geez people get a grip. It's like half the population of the country is throwing a temper tantrum like a toddler who acts like the world is ending because they can't get the toy they want.

      Perhaps you're simply too young to remember the reaction when Obama was elected eight years ago, but it wasn't pretty.

      Four years later, in 2012, reactions from the right to Obama's second election as president hadn't changed much. Back then, Donald Trump tweated:

      1. "This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!"
      2. "We can't let this happen. We should march on Washington and stop this travesty. Our nation is totally divided!"
      3. "He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!"
      4. "Let's fight like hell and stop this great and disgusting injustice! The world is laughing at us."
    5. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they are going to change a lot... and for the worse. Remember, he ran a campaign demonizing half the country. That never turns out well for the victims.

    6. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.

      I remember when people said that about Bush. Two wars and a global financial meltdown later, I guess they were technically correct, but please forgive us for not wanting to have to live through another round of that just yet.

      And Bush was at least arguably qualified to hold the office.

    7. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if he comes out the greatest president ever since the last time the cubs won the world series.

      A large chunk of the population will never admit it. And are hoping so hard our country fails.

      You've got to respect stupid that severe. Because it might get on you next.

    8. Re:Yeah? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Things Trump might realistically do that scare the shit out of people:

      - Beef up libel laws to silence critics
      - Cancel LGBT rights
      - Remove abortion rights
      - Deport millions of people
      - Cripple Obamacare
      - Create a far right leaning SCOTUS that can't be undone for decades
      - Fuck up the Middle East even more trying to get rid of ISIS
      - Severely damage the economy with failed protectionist policies
      - Oversee a rise in racism, homophobia and other kinds of hate fuelled activity

      There are not people worrying over nothing. Changes to Obamacare alone could kill people. Wouldn't you be genuinely worried if your kid needed expensive medicine to live and Obamacare was the only way you could afford it?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:Yeah? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Obama used the full force and power of the government to attempt to silence conservatives, expanded government surveillance, gave the health insurance industry the biggest bribe ever, imported people that were terrorists, fucked up the Middle East with more "regime change" bullshit, presided over the most anemic economic recovery in history, fanned the flames of racism for political gain, promised all kinds of awesome shit to fractional groups in return for votes and failed to deliver shit, shut businesses down because of their political affiliation, etc. etc.

      The whole liberal We are so benign and the opposition is so evil is one of the reasons they are in the dumpster, support wise. Heck, the Democrats haven't been this diminished since the evil Republicans forced them to free their slaves.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    10. Re:Yeah? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sit back, and relax. Maybe you'll like the way he handles the country, but probably not. Regardless, the country isn't going to fall apart.

      I've read his book, that's where I'm getting my cynical opinion, (Which is probably actually optimistic), of him.

  30. TROLLAGEDDON 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah. Getta load of this loon...

    When Herr Drumpf outlaws satire, will that include self-satire?

    1. Re:TROLLAGEDDON 2016! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Alex Padilla seems like a loon. It's par for the course in California.

  31. Expensive by Guspaz · · Score: 3, Informative

    I'll ignore all the political aspects of this discussion and simply point out that this is a rather expensive proposition. I don't see a recent size estimate, but we know that the site increased from 10PB to 15PB between 2012 and 2014, so it's reasonable to estimate that it's around 23PB today.

    How expensive is 23PB of storage, including the serves themselves? If we use BackBlaze's cost estimates (they build custom high-density chassis) of $0.036/GB, we get a figure of roughly $868k USD spread across 49x4U servers. Of course, that's just the hardware. The colocation space (including power and connectivity) would be at least $10,000 CAD per month.

    1. Re:Expensive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not expensive at all. And if governments actually cared about preserving history, rather than dressing up propaganda as history, just about every country would be standing up an archive.org mirror.

  32. Mindless political FUD. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Once again, we are reminded at how fragile and easily triggered our SJW friends are in the left wing. Republicans endured Obama, liberal bed wetters need to grow up.

    1. Re:Mindless political FUD. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      These false equivalence arguments comparing Trump to Obama or Hillary are quite tiresome. Neither of them ever openly expressed interest in committing war crimes, restricting free speech, enacting mass deportation, using nuclear weapons, or imposing travel bans, registries, increased surveillance or special identification on Muslims, just for starters. Trump's bigotry is nothing to scoff at or hand-wave away. Alarm at his ideas is well-justified, especially if you consider the historical parallels.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  33. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I've often said that Trump won't be as bad as the left says, if only because that isn't possible.

    --
    Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  34. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >>if you are financially secure

    Any further specification is superfluous and agenda-driven.

    Nonsense. Racists and homophobes don't run credit checks.

  35. How sad! by Nexion · · Score: 0

    The obvious political bias now calls into question the integrity of the Internet Archive. A friend recently pointed out something there that suggested an inaccuracy in reporting by a right leaning publication. I simply chalked it up to a minor error made by that publication and moved on. Particularly as I had not seen the offending image on the right leaning publication itself.

    After seeing this I'm left to wonder if it is at all possible that the archive was manipulated for political reasons.

    If they were truly concerned they would simply increase their backups. Having servers outside the US are only useful once they were forced to make an edit, and Canada would be one of my last choices as a censorship free country. This is either using the state of affairs to scam funding from liberals as is being done by MANY organizations currently, making a political statement or both.

    Pity... I would have preferred they stayed impartial and maintained their integrity.

  36. Wrong country by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry wrong country to store the backup copy in.

    Don't get me wrong, I love Canada. I've lived here my entire life. But too many times in the past has Canada bowed to pressure from the US.

    They should put it in a country out of reach of the US government....if there is such a place.

  37. Trump? Really? by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    They should be more concerned with the shenanigans happening in the UK (Investigatory Powers Act), which might have a more lasting impact on the data they host in CANADA than anything Trump would do.

  38. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

    He can't be worse than Barak Obama - you know suspending habeas corpus..

  39. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by MetalliQaZ · · Score: 1

    If your agenda is equality for all Americans, then yes.

    --
    "Here Lies Philip J. Fry, named for his uncle, to carry on his spirit"
  40. Why Canada? by wisnoskij · · Score: 4, Informative

    We do not have 1/4 the free speech laws as America. In fact right now we are looking at Bill C-16, which may class improper pronoun use as harassment. Making it entirely possibly that every time someone transitions, all archives of their past gender would need to be updated or erased. While I am not positive this one law is a serious threat to The Internet Archive operating in Canada, it shows how tenuous their situation would be if they operated in Canada.

    This is as ridiculous as American citizens talking about moving to Canada. You already need id to vote here and we do not allow illegal immigrants to stay in the country. We are the exact thing all these people do not want America to become.

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    1. Re:Why Canada? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      I'd LOVE to see a lawsuit which that attempts to delete archival records. I can see it possible (unlikely but who knows) that some content may be requested to be removed from the online visible archive.

      Legit question, what does archive.org do about posting torrent links, and other such 'illegal' content on the internet?
      "The Internet Archive respects the intellectual property rights and other proprietary rights of others. The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others."

      So they still honour copyright and who knows what else, so there's no wholly unmolested source of archival information (at least publicly).

      --
      Bye!
    2. Re:Why Canada? by ItsJustAPseudonym · · Score: 1

      ...which may class improper pronoun use as harassment.

      See how y'all are?

  41. Canada is not far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Canada is not far enough, and it's part of the 5 eyes. Are you kidding me?

  42. Queen of Canada by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Informative

    isnt canada still technically ruled by the queen of england??

    No Canada is technically ruled by the Queen of Canada. The title is held by the same person but it is entirely separate and equal to her title as the Queen of England. The Canadian and UK Parliaments are equal but separate: no law passed by the UK parliament affects Canada and no law passed by the Canadian parliament affects the UK. But please don't let these facts get in the way of a good rant...

    1. Re:Queen of Canada by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      But please don't let these facts get in the way of a good rant...

      You *must* be new here.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Queen of Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And just to add a small technicality to your good and informative comment: technically she is not "Queen of England" as there is no Kingdom of England, nor English Crown since the 1707 unification with Scotland. So instead she is "Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" (or in the full long form "Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and of Her other Realms and Territories Queen, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith").

      I know it is just a technicality, but I find it funny that the person always refereed as "Queen of England" is queen of many places (Queen of Australia, Queen of Canada, Queen of Jamaica, etc), but not in fact Queen of England.

  43. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Tailhook · · Score: 1

    To think these people only just now realized that they probably shouldn't have all there eggs in the US basket. Did I miss some big rollback in the surveillance state under Obama or credible commitments from Clinton to deal with it? ...pretty sure I didn't.

    Questionable judgement all the way around, both for their naivety to date and for their leftist knee jerk reaction.

    --
    Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
  44. They never follow thru... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rush Limbaugh threatened to move to Costa Rica if the ACA were upheld by SCOTUS, which it was, but then he never followed through. Left or Right, they never follow thru... Costa Rica, as it turns out, has had socialized medicine since the 70s. Honestly, I would pay Limbaugh's air fare if he promised to go and never come back.

  45. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking as a non-American non-leftie...

    I think he could easily be worse. He's already broken American democracy (remember, the whole purpose of democracy is to convince the losers that they've lost), and he hasn't even taken office yet.

    Brace yourself.

  46. Silly me. by jmichaelg · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    All this time I had thought the archive was non-partisan. Sorry to see them choose a side. I'm a conservative and now I can't be sure I can trust them to be even handed when I archive pages that have a conservative slant.

    Now to figure out how to stop auto-donating each month.

    1. Re:Silly me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now to figure out how to stop auto-donating each month.

      As if you ever gave any money. Talk is cheap.

    2. Re:Silly me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really like what they are doing, but their communication has become quite obnoxious. I don't care about Trump, but meanwhile, they don't reply to actual serious inquiries. I fear they hired your typical millennial community manager.

    3. Re:Silly me. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd suggest you get used to people telling you how awful you are.

      Grow a thick skin or retreat to a safe space. Man up you limp wristed conservative pussy.

  47. Stupidest thing I've read today by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More FUD. Come on people. wake up!

  48. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by wisnoskij · · Score: 1

    Trump was the only major candidate who has always said that gay couples deserve the same protections and rights as all other couples.
    Sanders, wishy-wash in 2000, would not give an opinion.
    Hillary, stated with no ambiguity that marriage was between a man and a woman exclusively in 2000.
    Trump "I do favor a very strong domestic-partnership law that guarantees gay people the same legal protection and rights as married people. I think it’s important for gay couples who are committed to each other to not be hassled when it comes to inheritance, insurance benefits, and other simple everyday rights.” - 2000

    If last year Hillary was against Homosexuals, how are we supposed to know what her opinion is going to be next year?

    --
    Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
  49. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Obama got the Peace Prize from the Nobel committee, which is mostly Europeans. Most people on all political sides are still a bit confused as to why he won that thing, beyond it just being a kinda silly symbolic act. People on both sides overracted to Obama's election. There were the ignorant liberals who believed that Obama's presidency was gonna do stuff like halt middle-east conflict and put an end to racial inequality, and there were the ignorant conservatives who ran to gun stores in droves believing Gun-industry funded NRA scare campaigns saying Obama was gonna take their guns and they should all become preppers and build survival shelters.

    The trouble with Trump is that between his complete lack of experience in government, and his continued declarations of clearly unconstitutional ideas, he's an unknown. Most people don't have a reason to be terrified of anything, this is true. However, it gives people an opportunity to take stock of things and do a little risk assessment.

    In this case, I think it's a good move. Not because Trump will ruin the world, but becuase "Oh, hey, now that you mention it, all this really really important information in a single country is a pretty dumb move, because, laws and stuff can change."

  50. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The difference is, the "progressives" as you call them are also hoping "Trump won't earn the terror his election has triggered" just like almost everybody else in the world. If nothing out of the ordinary happens, that would be great. Doesn't stop planning for the possibility of a worse outcome any more than it stops all those crazy preppers and their worries about people supposedly wanting to take away any and all of their guns.

  51. Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Lincoln didn't have the power to suspend Habeas Corpus. Roosevelt didn't have the power to send American citizens of Japanese-decent to internment camps.

    You are wrong, the Supreme Court said that he did and it was Constitutional, and that's the only legal opinion that matters. In addition Korematsu v. United States has not been overturned.

    You are also wrong about Lincoln suspending Habeas Corpus; that is explicitly allowed by the Constitution: "The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it" The Civil War was most certainly rebellion; thus explicitly allowed.

    Congratulations on batting 0 for 2. (I'm in no way stating that I agree with the laws; only that the actions were lawful according to the court case and letter of the law. )

    1. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, and if/when trump starts erasing things from the internet they will reaffirm that he has that right because of muh terrorism.
      Better to be proactive.

    2. Re:Wrong by Verdatum · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Lincoln's actions were ruled unconstitutional in the US Circuit Court of Appeals, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Lincoln just straight up IGNORED that ruling. And when people bitched about this, Lincoln had them thrown in prison too. Lincoln went on to throw a massive chunk of the Maryland Legislature in prison, just to keep them from voting, which is a MASSIVE stretch of the concept of "rebellion or invasion"

      The only reason Korematsu hasn't been overturned is that it hasn't come under judicial review. The actual conviction was overturned in 1983 because the government knowingly submitted false information. The Department of Justice issued a notice confirming that the solicitor general at the time was in error. If the ruling were to come under review, it's generally agreed that it would be overturned. Instead of explicitly overturning it, it just never gets cited as president.

      Even if Korematsu vs. the United States was initially ruled unconstitutional, the president still would've had the power to set up the camps until that ruling (and the other before it) told him to knock it off. That's the concern.

    3. Re:Wrong by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Lincoln's actions were ruled unconstitutional in the US Circuit Court of Appeals, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Lincoln just straight up IGNORED that ruling. And when people bitched about this, Lincoln had them thrown in prison too. Lincoln went on to throw a massive chunk of the Maryland Legislature in prison, just to keep them from voting, which is a MASSIVE stretch of the concept of "rebellion or invasion"

      I'm just reading wikipedia, but the House & Senate subsequently passed
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      to authorize the President to suspend it.

    4. Re:Wrong by Verdatum · · Score: 1

      Yes, from then on, that's mostly fine (he was probably a bit over-broad in using this power, which is a dick-move, but a legal dick-move). But the initial suspension that I'm talking about was 2 years before this. A similar act gave President Grant the same ability to suspend the writ during the reconstruction period, which he also used, and that's also OK.

    5. Re:Wrong by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, sorry, I didn't make that clear. It does say they indemnified him before passing that new bill though.. (Which I guess is different from forgiving him, but they didn't impeach him or anything.)

    6. Re:Wrong by AthanasiusKircher · · Score: 1

      Lincoln's actions were ruled unconstitutional in the US Circuit Court of Appeals, by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and Lincoln just straight up IGNORED that ruling. And when people bitched about this, Lincoln had them thrown in prison too. Lincoln went on to throw a massive chunk of the Maryland Legislature in prison, just to keep them from voting, which is a MASSIVE stretch of the concept of "rebellion or invasion"

      You forgot the most important element of the Constitution's passage on suspending Habeas corpus:

      The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

      The Constitution's provision required not just "rebellion," but a state of rebellion where "the public safety" was endangered. There's simply no evidence that that was the case in Maryland at this time. If there was any danger to the "public safety," it was being caused by the massive build-up of armed troops that were responding to Lincoln's call for an aggressive invasion of the South. At best, the "public" in Maryland was responding with protests to destroy railways, etc. to PREVENT a threat to "public safety" in the form of full-blown armed conflict (which was most likely to result, as it eventually did, in invasion of border states by military troops).

      One could probably argue that Lincoln had some right to arrest these protesters for disrupting troop movements or whatever, but there was no evidence of a threat to "public safety" being created, so therefore the suspension of Habeas corpus for such arrests was completely unjustified.

      And the fact that Lincoln then started throwing the Maryland legislature and various judges in prison for trying to similarly act to PREVENT a building danger to public safety is a HUGE distortion of what the Constitution says.

      I'm no "Southern apologist," but it's important to remember that there's little evidence that the South wanted an armed conflict in secession. Moreover, at this early stage, there were also still plenty of folks in the North who preferred to just let the Deep South leave peacefully. Then Fort Sumter happened, and that energized a lot of warmongering folks on both sides, but there were still plenty of voices in favor of a peaceful exit.

      THOSE were largely the people whom Lincoln was throwing in jail -- not those in active "rebellion" that threatened "public safety," but those who wanted to prevent new violence. I sincerely doubt that's what the Framers of the Constitution had in mind when they allowed suspension of Habeas corpus when "the public safety may require it."

    7. Re:Wrong by yuriklastalov · · Score: 2

      What, like with an eraser?

    8. Re:Wrong by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      "With a cloth?"

    9. Re:Wrong by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln didn't make a massive mistake in going to war with the South. Sure he forced them back into the union where the emancipation proclamation could be enforced - but what did that actually achieve ? The South sure didn't become any less racist. Jim Crow still happened, and Trump still got elected (and the South were pretty critical to that process).

      What if Lincoln had just let them secede and offered citizenship to any slave who could make it to the border instead ? Before - slaves had to free to states where they could live, but could still be returned. One of the seccession's major driver was Southern States being furious that states like New York and Maryland refused to return runaway slaves (so it was actually OPPOSING states rights, not defending it).
      But if they were suddenly granted citizenship in a different COUNTRY - then trying to get them back would be an act of war. That would change the picture greatly.

      The South could have been left to rot, and would likely have ended up looking a lot like it looks now anyway. Perhaps slavery would have ended there in time - or just de facto ended when there were no black people left and no country willing to sell them new ones.
      Trump couldn't have won the United States but a Trump-alike may have won the confederate states. So what ?

      Of course you're talking about a change so massive i't's impossible to really predict the final outcomes - especially since these two countries would rather dislike each other but also be each other's most critical economic partners. The confederates may well have chosen to expand territory by invading Mexico, Cuba and perhaps even Panama (many Americans wanted Cuba to be ceased for a very long time after all). Who knows ?

      But I do sometimes wonder if going to war against the confederates and bringing them back into the union by force of conquest wasn't a mistake - even if you were doing it to free the slaves ? If there wouldn't have been better results by just offering the slaves safe harbour.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    10. Re:Wrong by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      Ah, lovely, to see the moral equivalence being made between slavery and racism.

      racism isn't even close to slavery, son. as a mugging isn't close to murder.

      wanting to do an act isn't the same as doing an act. islamophobia isn't racism, homophobia isn't 'being a nazi', etc. etc.

      so a baker doesn't want to sell a centerpiece for a gay wedding. so what? go down the street, the prevailing direction we see society going is one where for every 1 shop that won't sell to your special day, there are 9 that are lining up for your business, and probably 3 of them actually actively support your right. the other 6 just want your money.

      people on the left see a great moral victory in the gay couple suing the baker. I think people in the middle just see two people trying to impose their will on another person. A diversity of opinion means a diversity in wrong opinions too, because who are you to be the arbiter in what is right and what is wrong?

    11. Re:Wrong by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >Ah, lovely, to see the moral equivalence being made between slavery and racism.

      Because they are. If you are able to hold a prejudice against somebody about his skin, you are capable of enslaving him on the same grounds. That's literally how the first 200 years of America went.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    12. Re: Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can eat bread you can also murder

    13. Re:Wrong by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      no, because there is a clear moral line between dictating someone's actions and dictating their thoughts.

      slavery isn't wrong because racism is involved, slavery is wrong because one is depriving another of their liberty. racism isn't wrong because 'discrimination' is wrong, but because 'prejudice' is a logical fallacy. the two are linked in our world view. but one is a crime, one is a mistake. racism in isolation only hurts the racist. slavery in isolation hurts another.

      discrimination is a valid response, and prejudice is intrinsic to our species. if a black man comes into my diner, and and destroys all my glassware, if he comes into my diner again, i would be crazy not to refuse him service, that's discrimination. if i extend this to all black people, then that's discrimination with a helping of prejudice. On the other hand, if i'm a hunter on the plains of africa, and i see a snake, and last tuesday a snake bit and killed my friend, i'm high-tailing it even if this snake has different stripes. that's prejudice, and it's pattern recognition, that's what kept our species going for much of its history. taking one example with a trait, and extrapolating over all similar examples with the same trait. we've just carried it further than its usefulness, into the modern era.

    14. Re:Wrong by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Let me give you a bit of advice: prejudice against people - is an evil that has no end.
      There is no gradation to that evil. The least of it inevitably leads to the worst of it.

      Don't try to pretend there is a difference between saying the n-word and participating in genocide - because there isn't one. They are merely two points on the same timeline.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    15. Re:Wrong by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      this is why we can't have nice things.

      the difference between saying the n-word, and a lynching, is one very dead black person.

      hate one another, be vile to one another, but be cordial. Life is not without friction, and the moment we try and dictate what people think, that's the moment we overstep ourselves.

    16. Re:Wrong by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Nobody dictated anything except you - who is trying very hard to dictate to me that I'm not allowed to think that if you have so little respect for other people that you can use the n-word you MUST also have so little respect for them that you could lynch one.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Wrong by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      i'm just pointing out to you that equating racism to slavery is hyperbolic. they are not same thing, and stating they are so is disingenuous at best.

    18. Re:Wrong by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Except I didn't even originally do that. They did, however, go together (there were no white slaves in American after all), and in post-slavery America racism remained a problem - which was the literal words I said. I pointed out that the war did nothing to alleviate the latter.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    19. Re:Wrong by Triklyn · · Score: 1

      "Sometimes I wonder if Lincoln didn't make a massive mistake in going to war with the South. Sure he forced them back into the union where the emancipation proclamation could be enforced - but what did that actually achieve ? The South sure didn't become any less racist. Jim Crow still happened, and Trump still got elected (and the South were pretty critical to that process)."

      that's literally your first paragraph. suggesting that perhaps the civil war wasn't worth it because even though slavery was ended, racism was not.

      i meant equating them morally when calling your comparison hyperbolic,apologies, dropped a word in there and changed the accusation, that's on me.

      they are not equally morally evil. making a person property, is nowhere close to be as morally benign as simply hating a person irrationally.

  52. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've often said that Trump won't be as bad as the left says, if only because that isn't possible.

    You haven't read his fucking book.

  53. Still butt hurt by m0s3m8n · · Score: 2

    OMG. I just love the histairia.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
  54. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i'm curious what a leftist is, other than a label a bunch of shit throwing monkeys use to signal/bond with their tribe?

  55. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can we stop pretending like one side is different from the other? We are finally finishing up with 8 years of bullshit from the right about Obama's secret agendas and his hatred for America. So now the left's candidate has lost and they are starting to blame everything on the new president. Same shit.. Roles are just reversed. Get off your fucking high horse.. You're no better than anyone else.

  56. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Americans have equality.

    What YOU are after are special privileges. You think equality is about seeing what someone else earned and demanding that it's what YOU deserve as well.

  57. I try to look on the bright side by HBI · · Score: 1

    Leftist idiots are going to expand the Internet Archive. Yay!

    They aren't going to accomplish what they think they are going to do. It would be pointless anyway, the whole premise is retarded. But that's okay. The Internet Archive is getting bigger!

    --
    HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
  58. Singe by dohzer · · Score: 1

    Trump may have promised to burn books and build a wall, but if he's only building a fence now, I'm guessing the books will just end up with singed corners.

  59. Good thing to build a copy. Wrong motivation. by LaughingRadish · · Score: 1

    This is just unfounded paranoia. Go ahead and build the copy, but build it because backups are a good idea in general.

  60. It's ok, the FBI, CIA, NSA have a copy via Obama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's ok, the FBI, CIA, NSA have a copy via Obama

  61. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your dismissal in light of visually present evidence is agenda driven.

  62. You're irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are not American. Your opinion does not matter. I did not comment on Brexit. You should not comment on trump.

  63. The homos! The muslims! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trumpeteer detected! Why should we just get over and quit being scared? We constantly told you guys during the elections that muslims and homos were not gonna blow your kid in a bathroom yet you still ran around freaking the fuck out. You're just being smug because you got what you wanted. It is my job to make sure, just as your repubulican congress did to us, that you have an absolutely horrible time getting anything done. You reap what you sow.

  64. Really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which party was it that introduced a Constitutional Amendment to change the 1st Amendment to eliminate free speech, again? The Republicans? Trump's party? No - it was the Democrats trying to overturn the "Citizens United" decision, which underscored the fact that everyone gets a voice in politics, even people with a lot of money who don't like the Democrats. Their cynical desire to regulate the Koch's political speech while leaving the even wealthier George Soros and the various overpaid, under-achieving unions free to continue pumping big money to the Democrats being the PRIME motivator. I love the Internet Archive, and you DID dodge a bullet - but it was heading for your own back from your own side. You can't preserve history by misreading it through a fog of political special interests.

    1. Re:Really? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      He defeated Clinton who had been building her career up for this election over the course of 30 years, had unconventional, "ethics be damned" style support from mainstream media and DNC, raised a ton more money, etc. He picks up politics a year and a half ago and beats Clinton by a margin not seen since Reagan. He also beats the openly hostile press, both parties' establishments, and well over a dozen of other primary candidates, and does it with one third the money and people of the opponent. And then armchair politicians like you go to Slashdot and post drivel about him not knowing what he's doing. Enough already. The dude is pretty darn smart. He knows _exactly_ what he's doing.

      Are you masturbating while you write this?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  65. The Leftist's Archive. by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Borders really don't stop the US if it's a problem that isn't a media-driven fiction like this.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  66. For smart people you have no idea what's going on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was just trolling to point you to the legislation Hillary Clinton put forth, among other things. The funny part is that you have no idea what he's doing so you assume he's crazy. Well he is crazy... like a fox.

    You'd think that you'd have learned that by losing to him so many times, but apparently not. You don't even know how many things he's won on the recount issues because you don't even know what's going on yet. He's actually outfoxed you in several different ways, most of which you haven't noticed yet.

  67. It'll never happen because... by wernst · · Score: 1

    ...the Canadian Prime Minister said that he'd going to build a wall on the US-Canada border to keep the Americans out of his country. Oh, and he said he's going to make the Americans pay for it.

  68. Racist! by mi · · Score: 1

    "It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase."

    Although surveillance expanded dramatically under Obama, these guys didn't object.

    They gave Obama a pass, but are exceedingly harsh on Trump. As we know, this can only be explained by racism... So, fook them — they aren't getting a penny from me until they publicly renounce this wasteful effort.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Racist! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Well this explains why you have a problem with the word "racism". You clearly have no idea what it means.

      Although surveillance expanded dramatically under Obama, these guys didn't object.

      They're worried about being made to delete stuff. That has little to do with surveillance.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Racist! by mi · · Score: 1

      Well this explains why you have a problem with the word "racism".

      Trump and Obama are of different races. Internet Archive is treating the two men differently, ergo racism.

      That has little to do with surveillance.

      For the slow children in the audience, allow me to repeat the already-quoted excerpt from the official statement of the Internet Archive. With emphasis this time — to aid the underdeveloped pattern-recognition faculties of certain readers:

      "It means serving patrons in a world in which government surveillance is not going away; indeed it looks like it will increase."

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Racist! by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      Trump and Obama are of different races. Internet Archive is treating the two men differently, ergo racism.

      OK that definitively proves you have no idea what racism is. Would you like to know?

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
  69. Geeky Nutcase by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just moved Kahl into my Geeky Nutcase category. Trump's been a prominent public figure for decades. When in hobnobbed with celebrities, including Bill and Hillary, and had his own TV show, did anyone make these outlandish accustations against him? I think not.

    It's only since he ran as and was elected as a Republican that this demonization began. Democrats have been doing that at least as far back as Ike in the 1950s. Their rank and file, stupid to the bone, fall for it every time. And yet this horrors never happen.

  70. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like "alt-right" which is a label used for everything between the second coming of Hitler and a guy that just wants to play GTA without people trying to get him fired for it.

  71. Yikes! the liberal propaganda machines at work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, the propaganda machines of the Left designed to scare voters from voting Republican really do have people scared crapless. I'm actually far more worried about SJWs and their constant name calling and demands for safe spaces than anything Trump will do. He's shown no signs of authoritarian censorship beyond cries of unfair press coverage. Unlike the Left that wants to silence opposing views and get people fired for political affiliation.

  72. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    um... last I checked Obama was trying hard to UNDO Bush's ignoring of habeas corpus that created the gitmo "prisoner" situation. It's the Republicans in congress that have used every trick in the book to prevent following the law.

  73. What about the archive.org copy in Alexandria, by ffkom · · Score: 1

    Egypt, does it still exist, or has it been shut down by the new Pharao?

  74. Canada has no free speech amendments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moving anything there to preserve is kinda strange.

  75. Eleven Million by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    There are eleven million illegal immigrants in the US. That number is falling, and has been for some while. However, you're still talking about deporting more people than live in the state of Georgia. Are you going to pay for that? How do you imagine you would begin rounding people up? Are you going to start demanding citizenship papers from anyone with brown skin? Do you imagine you will be able to do that without mistakes and massive rights violations? Honestly, if that is really a goal of yours, I feel badly for you, because the logistics and legal challenges alone are probably insurmountable. I would also like to point out the inherent contradiction between supporting small government and calling for government action on an unprecedented scale.

    Having many people do illegal things is not good for the rule of law. The problem however has gone somewhat outside the reach of the law. Expanding that reach is dangerous and expensive, especially when you consider the cost of removing those 11 million people from the economy. It kinda has a "Final Solution" vibe to it as well, but we'll forgo any direct comparisons.

    Now I don't know if you have ever given up your language, your family, your job, and your culture, and tried to make life work in another country, but let me tell you from experience, it is unbelievably difficult. The people who can accomplish it are exceptional. I haven't ever heard of any particularly good reasons to restrict the free flow of labor, trade, ideas, and information. My ancestors came to this country to work and to build a better life, and they were spat on for it, but things have worked out well enough in spite of the fears prevalent at the time. From an economic standpoint it would seem to make more sense to get people registered and paying taxes than housing and transporting them, paperwork being generally cheaper than paperwork and plane tickets. All told, mass deportation sounds like an exceptionally stupid and spiteful move. There may be laws which are worthwhile to take an absolutist position on, where there is no good argument to be made for the opposing view. I'm not particularly interested in ruining our economy and society to pursue this goal of yours, and think your arguments for doing so are pretty poor, even if they are widely shared. However, my consolation is that while the electorate cannot be trusted to make an informed decision on the matter, the politicians are not so stupid. While there is certainly plenty of bluster about the issue (it's seemingly useful to rile people up), I don't believe there has been any actual legislation which attempted to do anything about it, nor do I believe that any will be forthcoming. The question of why conservatives keep voting for people who claim to oppose rights for queers and foreign-born persons, but who have a record of failure to do so, is left as an exercise to the reader.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Eleven Million by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I don't want to try and round up 11 million people. I want to try and round up a much much smaller list of self identified illegal aliens who applied for deferred action. I suspect its highly likely their similarly undocumented parents and other family members will follow them home, and so much the better.

      Finding and deporting 11 million is impossible. Finding a small faction of them stupid enough to literally file an admission to a crime on the other hand isn't difficult at all. It will also serve as a very instructive example of the dangers of federal power and 'lists' for everyone else!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:Eleven Million by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      There are eleven million illegal immigrants in the US. That number is falling, and has been for some while. However, you're still talking about deporting more people than live in the state of Georgia. Are you going to pay for that? How do you imagine you would begin rounding people up? Are you going to start demanding citizenship papers from anyone with brown skin? Do you imagine you will be able to do that without mistakes and massive rights violations? Honestly, if that is really a goal of yours, I feel badly for you, because the logistics and legal challenges alone are probably insurmountable. I would also like to point out the inherent contradiction between supporting small government and calling for government action on an unprecedented scale.

      It's not unprecedented, as Trump himself has pointed out. He also sees no problem with it according to his "we did it before and therefore it's OK" logic.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Eleven Million by epine · · Score: 1

      Finding a small faction of them stupid enough to literally file an admission to a crime on the other hand isn't difficult at all.

      Finding a small faction of them stupid enough to literally fight on the wrong side of a civil war on the other hand isn't difficult at all.

      FTFY.

      Suggestion. Try reading history. Nearly the whole of the present world order had its origins in a then-termed illegal act—pretty much all the wayback to Silverback Eden.

      Twenty-five distinct vocalisations are recognised, many of which are used primarily for group communication within dense vegetation. Most of these mean "don't".

  76. Suckers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A scare tactic to get you to hand over money..

    Trump was elected, the sky is falling! Build your bomb shelters - he's got the keys to the nukes! Granny? You might as well just jump off the cliff.

    It's like taking candy from a baby.

  77. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are correct that Hillary swam to a very different policy on gay marriage, when the political tides shifted. Probably some pandering going on there.

    However I get frustrated and upset when people quote Trump on literally any issue. Trump has taken multiple positions on so many issues, no one even knows what the guy thinks. And every time he gets in trouble, his supporters always claim 'he was only joking'. The guy has a chronic case of verbal diarrhea because he'll go in front of an audience and talk for hours. Without notes. He plays to his audience and simply utters whatever random thoughts he has, leavened only by his desire to get a positive audience reaction.

    With this style of communication, his words have little or no meaning.

    - He's going to build a Wall and the Mexicans are going to pay for it! Except maybe now, it's not a full wall, and the Mexicans probably won't pay.
    - He's going to dismantle the Affordable Care Act. Except maybe now, he's talked to Obama and he really likes parts of the ACA!
    - He's going to make a Huugggeee military, cut taxes, and balance the budget. No one is going to push America around! Except maybe now, there's no way to do all that simultaneously, so something's gotta give.

  78. Anti-Trump Insanity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While having a backup is a good thing, Doing it because you're afraid of Trump is utterly ridiculous.

  79. Because that is the new /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's why

  80. Clickbait titles by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Can someone build something to protect users from clickbait titles?

  81. Where is the torrent? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously. Why not publish the whole thing online for everyone? That's a sure way to keep it preserved.

  82. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Americans have equality.

    What YOU are after are special privileges. You think equality is about seeing what someone else earned and demanding that it's what YOU deserve as well.

    Since America has never had equal opportunity, what you "earned" is just another "special privilege".

  83. They actually believed the liberal media hype.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They actually believed the liberal media hype..there are interview with the minions who believed their crap. I've got coworkers who think they're going to be shipped back to Africa. The nonsense.

  84. The case of Canada (and Europe) by DavidMZ · · Score: 2

    You are legally permitted in Canada to criticize anyone and everyone. You are just not allowed to do it in any way that incites hatred or promotes genocide.

    According to Wikipedia (emphasis is mine):

    Under section 318 of the Criminal Code it is illegal to promote genocide. Under section 319, it is illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation, except where the statements made are true or are made in good faith

    In addition to Canada, most European countries have similar laws, i have lived there and I don't think it limits one's abilities to express one's opinions if one has any respect for the historical truth so I would be interested to know where you think the problem is with this law.

    1. Re:The case of Canada (and Europe) by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's true, despite hate speech laws in Europe we still have plenty of racist fucks. Some of them are even in government.

      Of course the alt-right blames them for the demise of groups like the BNP, but actually it's the opposite. Once the BNP started getting more media coverage they quickly imploded and people stopped voting for them once they understand what their actual policies were.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  85. You haven't been paying attention. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An ablest as attorney general, a secretary of education who is hostile to public schools, a chief strategist who is comfortable with race-baiting, a national security adviser who has a history of sharing classified information without authorization...

    I’m sure you heard of his recent tweet claiming he would have had the popular vote if millions hadn’t voted illegally. This comment isn't about this election. It's about 2020. It's about laying the groundwork to get his supporters and backers to push for laws to prevent imaginary voter fraud. The real aim being to block minority voters, students, etc. as much as possible as these people are most likely to vote against him.

    He's already planning to steal reelection. If you don't see that, you've drank too much. Now wait and see, he'll eventually tweet something against term limits. My bet? Inside four years.

    Who is going to stop him? Sure as hell not his cabinet. Congress? Ha! The GOP is terrified of crossing him.

    No, you misunderstood history. The first time, the dictator tends to be elected [or appointed by someone who was]. And look, he's already exposed his plan to keep power.

  86. Eben Moglen Comment - Plone conference 2006 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It takes a day with contemporary technology to destroy the libraries it takes centuries to build. And in times of great social stress, libraries burn." - Eben Moglen
                   

  87. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by sinij · · Score: 1

    So you are advocating equality of the outcomes, not just equality of opportunity?

  88. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I've often said that Trump won't be as bad as **TRUMP** says, if only because that isn't possible.

    FYFY

  89. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've often said that Trump won't be as bad as the left says, if only because that isn't possible.

    Six million jews and more than thirty million others might question the confidence of your conception of the possible.

  90. not all data in a big archive is equally important by rectalfeeding · · Score: 1

    i think you ought to also factor in that different data merits different levels of redundant backups. Not every bit of info ever scrapable from the web requires the same level of concern as far as archiving goes. Obviously this is no doubt part of the process already. Your back of the envelope calculations need to factor that in. I'm guessing you probably want to take the 1% most generally valuable data of that 23GB and have 10X more backups of it than of the rest. I'm thinking a globally distributed 'p2p' versioned filesystem is the right way to go about it. Same basic principle bittorrent uses IIRC- effectively the more accesses data gets, the more prominent it's position in the multi-level distributed effective caches. No central authority or copy. The potential for abuse of that central authority or copy is simply too high in my opinion.

  91. Interesting...but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the internet archive is known to be sanitized anyway...

  92. Typical liberal racism by melted · · Score: 1

    They're building it in Canada instead of Mexico. Don't like Hispanics much, do we, Brewster?

  93. Psh, the Canadian copy has only a few years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In like 10 years or at most 20, the Canadian one will get shut down or at the very least, censored to prevent hateful content from being archived. Meanwhile, the mean bad man they are all so scared of won't touch the US version. Liberals are the foe of free speech folks, look around you.

  94. Re: The law by hackwrench · · Score: 2

    You seem to think the law magically enforces itself.

  95. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looking over his cabinet selections, you're right... it looks to be worse than we could ever imagine...

  96. Re: The law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You seem to think the law magically enforces itself.

    Oh come one now, it's not like Trump has the power to appoint judges or anything like that.

  97. War is Peace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when trump starts erasing things from the internet they will reaffirm that he has that right because of muh terrorism.

    Trump has always had that right.

    Trump has always been President

  98. Taking slander to the next level. by leereyno · · Score: 1

    Conservatives and Republicans are commonly slandered as racists and bigots and any other number of terrible things by the left on a continual basis. The left keeps repeating this lie in the hope that it will be believed, and it is by the fools who fall for it.

    Now the leftists are putting their money where their mouth is and actively spending time and resources to pretend that the incoming Republican president is somehow out to get them.

    Such histrionics are only possible for people who have it easy. People who actually had to work hard for a living could not afford the luxury of such fake outrage.

    --
    Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
  99. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    there were the ignorant conservatives who ran to gun stores in droves believing Gun-industry funded NRA scare campaigns saying Obama was gonna take their guns

    To be fair, he did try.

  100. I'm laughing my socks off, Canada? Free? No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US, UK, Canada, Australian, New Zealand, Russia, and Europe are hardly free and respecting of everyone's privacy, security, and freedoms. Each country targets one (probably lots more than that really for every country) group or another for discrimination, incarceration, and censorship. The thing is I can't even bring up the groups being targeted without being down voted. The governments, media, and politicians use certain groups as scape goats for stories to move up the ladder. Some recent examples that are not socially unacceptable any longer that were used in the past include communists, recreational drug users, and similar.

    However you can point to other examples of persecution including those trading nazi related materials (looking at you Canada) and other places persecuting people who don't believe the holocaust ever happened and are willing to speak to that publicly (looking at you Australia, I believe). For a free society you need to be willing to accept the idea that disgusting, racist, perverted, bigoted, and 'dangerous' people are going to be free to share there thoughts. Majorities generally don't need protection. Minorities do.

    The paedophile is yesterday's homosexual as a perfect example of a persecuted group. You can't even bring up the subject without being called a paedophile in a derogatory way yourself. There are certainly homosexuals who rape children (see this classic homophobic 1950's era film on how dangerous homosexuality is to children to see what I mean: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2zikCUPPxw), but you shouldn't lock up homosexuals for the sake of 'protecting the children'. It's only going to be a small minority who actually rape children. Well, the media's done a wonderful job of projecting all paedophiles as murdering child rapists. However anyone who thinks about that for two seconds and looks at the statistics should be able to figure out what a laugh that is. Child rapes are rare relative to the arrests of paedophiles for child porn possession. The statistics are utterly ridicules. Proponents of the idea pedos are dangerous spout off nonsense like 75% of children have been raped. The way they get to these sorts of statistics is by including post-pubescent 'children' under 18 who have masturbated or had sex to be victims of childhood sexual abuse. Clearly there aren't enough actual rapists out there that they need to create a fictional story line to fill the prisons. Disgusting as all this is the image that paedophiles are a threat to our children is absurd. The government and those in power are utilizing these laws to attack freedom everywhere and those who push for it. Ian Freedom (liberty activist in New Hampshire), some liberty politician here got attacked by some 'sting operation' after he stopped texting some girl (they literally had to fake the teenage girl and have this fake girl beg for sex to get him to do anything, and mind you the age of consent here is like 15 or 16 so it was close to being legal anyway, at least sex, talking about sex is probably is still illegal as absurd as that sounds), then you have Julian Assange (Wikileaks), Jacob Appelbaum (Tor project), and others who have all been accused of various sex 'crimes' for which it's hard to pin-point a real victim in any real sense of the word.

    If you think your not part of some minority think again. It might be paedophiles and "terrorists" today (which is another excuse to target or word for bigoted non-Caucasians), but it could be you next. Got brown eyes? Or how about a preference for BSDM? Maybe you believe in god, or maybe you don't. Well, guess what. These have all been persecuted groups at one time or another.

    If you don't believe in the use of violence to achieve political or social goals (outside of defending oneself) consider moving to New Hampshire and taking part in the Free State Project. It's the only chance that there is going to be a last bastion of hope for those who wish to be free. The liberty community in New Hampshire is growing with 20,000 people moving or who have alr

  101. Re:not all data in a big archive is equally import by Guspaz · · Score: 1

    My estimate included no redundancy at all. So admittedly I significantly under-estimated. In practice, you'd want to have at least the equivalent of raidz2 or raid6 arrays, if not full backups.

  102. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    No I'm advocating you (a) learn to read and (b) stop mindlessly spouting slogans.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  103. Really? by melted · · Score: 1

    He defeated Clinton who had been building her career up for this election over the course of 30 years, had unconventional, "ethics be damned" style support from mainstream media and DNC, raised a ton more money, etc. He picks up politics a year and a half ago and beats Clinton by a margin not seen since Reagan. He also beats the openly hostile press, both parties' establishments, and well over a dozen of other primary candidates, and does it with one third the money and people of the opponent. And then armchair politicians like you go to Slashdot and post drivel about him not knowing what he's doing. Enough already. The dude is pretty darn smart. He knows _exactly_ what he's doing.

  104. Bottom line by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    We won. You lost.

    And to quote your side from a few years ago, "Elections have consequences".

    Live with it the way we've had to do for the past eight miserable years.

    1. Re:Bottom line by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Live with it the way we've had to do for the past eight miserable years.

      More tiresome false equivalence.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  105. Fine, "nearly three quarters of a million". by Tenebrousedge · · Score: 1

    No, that still sounds pretty unrealistic. It's far too easy to make that sort of thing look bad — because tearing people away from their friends and families is bad. Whether it's more or less bad than living in a country without permission is open to debate, but I find it very strange that you're taking an absolutist position on immigration law while being willing to compromise your beliefs about strong governments.

    As Janet Napolitano was so good as to provide me with a timely reference for this discussion, it seems there are "nearly three quarters of a million" people who have been protected under the DACA. Also keep in mind that they're mostly kids and young people. Can you imagine the shitstorm that would erupt? Riots in the streets, lawyers coming out of the woodwork, and there's only one way the Press would spin this.

    There are what, a million or so police in this country, right? And another million or so National Guard. Finding the manpower for this would be awful, and since the government is fortunately not regularly rounding up people en masse they are poorly prepared to do so. We're not going to get away with interment camps this time, either. And what good would deporting "a small fraction" of these people do? Wouldn't that still leave a larger problem? How is that an acceptable compromise to your principles? The idea that people will leave their jobs to follow their kids home is pretty naive. These are young adults, not infants.

    I really do have to hand it to whoever dreamed up DACA, it seems like an excellent "thin edge of the wedge". I can understand why you'd be upset about it. I think you are wrong and your arguments ill-founded, even immoral. But I am completely sure that taking action against illegal immigrants would be impractical and politically suicidal.No, the safe and cheap and principled option is for amnesty. It's not like it would be the first time.

    --
    Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.
    1. Re:Fine, "nearly three quarters of a million". by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      My thought is that such a nasty and vicious act, which is exactly what is, is the kind of thing that would teach the current generation the lessons of 20th century history they seem to be forgetting.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  106. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by GameboyRMH · · Score: 0

    "Equality of opportunity" is meaningless horseshit. Animals in the jungle have "equality of opportunity." Equality of outcome is the only equality that means anything in a civilized society.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  107. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by sinij · · Score: 1

    So should such equality of outcomes be completely independent of individual's actions?

  108. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by sinij · · Score: 1

    So how is the view from the inside epistemic event-horizon you inhabit?

  109. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    No. Communities need to decide on some level of independence they wish to support. But "equality of opportunity" is an empty catchphrase that attempts to dress up whistling and looking the other way as engaging the issue in some way.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  110. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Tell me, is that word salad as delicious as it sounds?

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  111. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by sinij · · Score: 1

    Your impotent rage makes its normally bitter taste much more palatable.

  112. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    Your impotent rage makes its normally bitter taste much more palatable.

    I think your fatasy is a delicious drssing on the said word salad.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  113. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by sinij · · Score: 1

    I disagree with you. Equality of Opportunity is the American Dream. Rags to riches. Work hard to do well. Equality of of Outcomes is shared misery. It is what Soviets had - no matter what you do you won't get ahead.

    Now, these are principles. In practice we don't have equality of opportunity. The system is rigged to favor entrenched players. You are a lot more likely to be born into money than work your way into it.

    To me, Equality of Outcomes is problematic not because it establishes the floor (you won't do worse than that), but because it also establishes a ceiling (you shouldn't do better than that). I think you should be talking about social contract, safety nets and so on instead of equality. Fundamentally, you will never reach equality because individual players are not equal. Some are smart, some are dumb, some run fast some run slow. No matter what metric you apply, you can't have everyone 'above average'.

  114. Close up That Internet by slazzy · · Score: 1

    Was it him who said he's going to close up that Internet?

    --
    Website Just Down For Me? Find out
  115. They should look at Iceland as a backup site. by Chir · · Score: 0

    Highly rated in terms internet freedom. One of the best ratings in the world. https://freedomhouse.org/repor...

  116. Re:Amazing over-reaction of the left, like 8 years by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I think setting a reasonable ceiling is a great idea. Inequality will maximize if left unbounded (we can already fit the people who colliectively own half the world's wealth into a double-decker bus, and nobody would have to stand), and making it possible for people to make millions of dollars a year encourages economically damaging behavior like cash hoarding and tax haven usage. If that money can't be put into executive pay it will be pushed into other areas including pay for the middle and lower classes, who will spend most of the money immediately instead of letting it pile up in a foreign bank account.

    The impossibility of reaching perfect equality is no reason to abandon all efforts at improving the situation. We can't prevent all murders but we still try to minimize them. Everyone doesn't have to be made "above average" but allowing them to make a decent enough living to support themselves and a family is a good start.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  117. Re:Good thing to build a copy. Wrong motivation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This!

  118. These did not understand? WHERE is MY BACKUP? by syntotic · · Score: 1

    Where do you get the idea you have to protect fro Trump when it was _I_ who was asking the archive to be protected BECAUSE it managed to save TWO versions of my domain... and now ONE version at least is gone! But I still have copies. The same happened with Geocities! I HAVE COURT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS IN BOTH. Had, in Geocities, lost. Now this one! You are supposed to defend yourselves from the ANTI-TRUMP, and whatever hid my domain backup is a criminal, deep criminal. You will lose more than win if you do not pay attention to this. Of course I will not publish the domain name here, but currently it only contains doteasy 404 pages, despite being quite active and changing and having had very good hits to save its contents. Why did they have to go without spidering? I would have even found the Geocities sites and the drawings and the music and everything else...

  119. Trump is Putin's boi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump is now Putin's boi and is going to do everything Putin tells him to do or else Putin will let is slip that his people rigged the election and Trump knew about it well in advance so not only does Trump get impeached, but he gets charged with treason as well.

    And Putin no doubt has sufficient evidence of that happening to get Trump nailed even if it wasn't true, and had made it perfectly clear to Trump that he does.

  120. You dingus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no "far left" in the United States of America! There is a "slightly left", a "right", a "far right" and fucking batshit insane "extreme right". Those last ones are the ones that won this election. You are NOT safe from their insanity. You are about to pickle in it!

    And where does it say in your Constitution (something I quite like, to be honest) that women can't control their fertility? That's what has Pence excited: the chance to take control of women once more.

  121. Uh.... Are you archive people that stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It wasn't TRUMP who GAVE many United States domain names away to the United Nations. Obama gave them away, prolly as a last ditch effort to cover his crimes being exposed by wiki leaks? Now Obama is facing a huge lawsuit from attorneys from Texas, Nevada, and two other states!

    UNBELIEVABLE! You friggin ivory tower archivists don't even know recent history! Obama GAVE THE DOMAIN NAMES AWAY IN SEPTEMBER ,2016!!!

  122. IPFS by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    Sounds like a perfect application for the Interplanetary File System.

    Lots of Copies Keep Stuff Safe.

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  123. We have become digital hoarders by SierraQ · · Score: 1

    Specifically commenting on the historical archive (wayback machine) of the Internet Archive: Is there REALLY a need it?

    Before everyone jumps on this with two feet let me clarify. I get that there is history here and history is good to preserve for educational purposes. The problem is judging what is significant enough to preserve and that is largely subjective. This leads to the default reaction of preserving everything. Do we really care what www.dickies.com used to look like? No offense to Dickies BBQ, I just picked them at random and found that I can see what their page looked like in 1996! This ability is admittedly cool and fun. It also aids in some limited real-world applications like law enforcement, auditing, historical reference, and perhaps as an occasional last-resort backup.

    But is it really necessary? Isn't this the digital equivalent of hoarding--filling your home with everything you ever bought, are given, found in the street, or salvaged from a dumpster? We also do this with emails, Facebook, tweets, photo libraries, and software. For most of these things you can go back forever.

    Is this an obsession with the past or an obsession with immortality? Do we fear the "death" of any piece of knowledge no matter how trivial? There is a philosophical question out there that asks, "What do we do when homes for the dead outnumber the homes for the living?" In other words if the whole world is one day covered in cemeteries where do the rest of us live? Granted the digital world is not constrained by a limited resource such as land. This is part of the problem. Physical things take up space and eventually you are forced to get rid of things when the exceed your personal threshold of what is "tidy" assuming you have one. Digital things just require a bigger hard drive that doesn't grow in dimension and you can get one of those anytime. Now you can keep 30,000 photos of your cat--most of them identical, most will never be looked at again, but never delete! (so said Google when Gmail Archive rolled out)

    Not bounded by physical space we end up keeping digital content for the sake of keeping it even if the vast majority of it has no actual value to ourselves or society. Is the loss/death of stuff such an anathema to the human race that we just can't bare to let go?

    The problem I see with things like the Internet Archive is that there is no curator. A curator of a museum has to decide what is significant and thereby keeps the museum to a manageable and consumable size. There are no bounds to this museum. Some might say that is a good thing. I suggest that it reflects a growing obsessions with things, digital or physical, in society that is leading us astray from things that really matter.

    What are we going to do when the whole Internet is a giant cemetery?

  124. Canada is NOT a safe location by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Canada has some of the harshest laws as it relates to free speech.

    The Canadian Human Rights Commission will ruin private citizens, businesses, etc. that express an opinion that is contrary to the current cultural marxist cause celebre.

    Judge for yourself:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/canadian-human-rights-commission-fines-comedian-15000-for-insulting-audience-member/article/557670

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_complaints_against_Maclean's_magazine

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Human_Rights_Commission_free_speech_controversy

    You can't say, or even host whatever you like in Canada. For instance, (as much as you might hate his opinions) Ezra Levant...
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezra_Levant#Human_Rights_complaint

    in his Alberta Human Rights case, he was punished for printing a letter of another person.

    If I didn't want to face lawsuits, I would not host anything in Canada, but instead opt for international waters.

  125. Internet Archive is a SCAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a scam! This is a scam! This is a scam!

  126. SCAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a scam!

    1. Re:SCAM! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much this SCAM project need for this massive archiving job ? Hundred of millions $$...the donation is not going to be that close...so what do they do with the donation ? Pocket it, of course....THIS IS A SCAM! Only fools would donate...

  127. Now!?! by Type-R · · Score: 1

    After the last 8 (12... 16....) years of expanding surveillance, reduction of gov't oversight, etc, NOW they think of this? I mean I get that the current bandwagon is that this is the end times, but everything they're looking at protecting themselves from has been rolling this way for years...