FBI Shuts Down Website

An AC sent in this Village Voice story - "In a highly unusual move last week, FBI agents called mike zieper, an independent artist who goes by the name Mike Z., and "requested" that he remove his site from the Internet. When he declined, the FBI worked in tandem with the U.S. Attorney's office to persuade his Web host and its server to pull Zieper's site--18 days after it went up--without having a subpoena or court order of any kind." The site was apparently crowdedtheater.com. What annoyed the FBI? Apparently the site had a video about rioting on New Year's Eve. Will the FBI shut down every site mentioning disruption on 2000-01-01?

Update: 11/24 08:11 by michael : One of our alert /. readers apparently saw and saved the video while the site was up, and has put up a mirror.

Comments

Uh oh

[Backward Z]

Looks like trouble. Big Brother, anyone?

This is bad...

[gregstoll]

So the FBI can pressure hosts into pulling websites just because they don't agree with the content? That's pretty scary...(first post?)

When does it stop?

[Zule_Boy]

First the RIAA does its version of "ordering" CMU to disconnect everyone that has MP3s "shared". Now the FBI and Some ISP (becamation.com) just disconnects their webserver? All of this kind of seems to go against what the Constitution of the United States of America says about privacy etc... I am scared for my own website(s). How long is it before someone doesn't like what I have and pulls the plug on my box?

Re:When does it stop?

[Garin]

One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays.

Similarly, the FBI (or anyone else) does not have to get any sort of legal document to tell an ISP to wipe out your web site. All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this. Then, subject to the agreement that you have with your ISP (which almost ALWAYS protect the ISP, and practically never gives you any say in anything at all), your pages get trashed. End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all.

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

Re:When does it stop?

[fcd]

It stops when the ISPs stop listening to the government. The government can't really make him take the site down...but then the ISP has more descresion then the government. So the goverment (and the RIAA for that matter) are just being intelegent by going to the ISP, or the university. If I am an ISP I am going to think very carefully about defending my user's first amendment rights, because I have to look at my bottom line, and anything that even smells of legal trouble costs money, so I will comply, it just good buisness. So if you run and ISP and want to see this stopped you better think about terminating peoples accounts due to content. Just don't do it.

Re:When does it stop?

[dominion]

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

So what do you do when all mediums are controlled by large corporations?

You see, people always think that government is the sole threat to free speech on the Internet, and it is a threat, but it's not the only one. Industry could, conceivably and very possibly, create a barrier-to-entry so high (the reason the internet is so free and inspiring is that the barrier to entry is so low) that the few who can afford to run a website are the ones who control the majority opinion.

You've already seen that happen with television, radio, and newspapers. They're all controlled by conglomerates who create economic barriers to competition. And since it's usually an oligopoly, and not a monopoly, and since it's not technically holding people back (by force of law) from free press, people claim that this is still a free country.

I say, stop bothering to get up and arms when the government claims it can censor or control the internet. They can't, they don't know how. But industry does, because they've been censoring and controlling mediums for years. It's nothing new to them. It's not oppression, they say, it's economics. But whatever they call it, the end result is the same.

So how do we combat this? We need to do all we can to keep the cost of the Internet down. At times like this, Free Beer can equal Free Speech. Linux, and the cooperative in San Francisco which sells T1 lines at cost is a fantastic example, and I wish I could see more situations like this crop up. It would also be nice to see the computer industry unionise but that's a whole different post.

In the end, if you don't want to see the Internet get gobbled up into the stomachs of the bloated plutocrats, it is up to you to make sure it doesn't happen. Keep the internet cheap and open to anybody, and you'll insure that the internet will be cheap and open for your own needs.

Michael Chisari

Re:When does it stop?

[Skwirl]

Bzzt. No. Sorry. Please play again. The Constitution clearly states that government can't, in any official capacity, "prohibit" or "abridge" free speech. That means, no harassing an ISP into pulling a site. You're right that if the ISP decided, on it's own, to pull the site, that'd be fine, if not a little wussy.

Re:When does it stop?

[Runna^Muck]

I think the kicker is "find a medium you control". Sure he could put up his own webserver, but then what's to stop the FBI from contacting his ISP to deny him DNS services or disable routing or whatever it takes. I'm not liking this at all.
Where was the FBI when NBC showed that lame ass Y2K movie the other night? Many more people were likely to see it than some guys website. Of course going after NBC would've been a national story and a big hassle. On the upside maybe it would've distracted Jesse Jackson from whatever he thinks he's doing in Illinois, but I digress.

Re:When does it stop?

[Garin]

You'll notice I said "ask nicely". I said that for a reason...

Harassment? No, that wouldn't be legal. Of course, there's a fine line between "discussion" and "harassment". Also, don't forget that we're only reading from one source -- and this source is definitely not going to be impartial. They're obviously going to portray the FBI in the most sinister, evil tones possible. Otherwise there wouldn't be much of a story, would there? And besides, what are the ISPs going to tell the public? Of -course- they're going to say that the FBI forced them to do it. How else could they save face? "Oh, we just figgered it wasn't, um, like nice and stuff." Yeah, the public would love that. They said what they had to, and the article played it to the hilt, as expected.

In reality, nobody knows what really happened except those that directly participated. And, in reality, this kind of thing can happen every single day, and there isn't a thing we can do about it. *this* was the point of my post: As long as you're relying on someone else, as long as you're paying -them- for a service, then you are subject to their whims, and play the "free speech" game on their terms.

Yes, this is a terrifying thing, and I don't know how to fix it. In any case, this isn't exactly a constitutional offence, however. It's a symptom of a very serious danger to our way of life all the same.

Re:When does it stop?

[pangloss]

Hmm. I didn't ask my ISP to support my message with its resources. I contracted with my ISP to provide X amount of disk space, bandwidth, etc. in return for a monthly payment of Y, subject to an appropriate use policy which fortunately lacks a "caprice" clause.

The magazine::authorISP::mike z analogy of the previous poster is faulty. Mike Z. is arguably the equivalent of the magazine/publisher, not the freelance magazine writer. He is publishing his own materials on his own site. By analogy, the ISP is closer to lumber mill that supplies the paper the print magazine is published on or the shipping company that delivers the printed magazines.

And of course, in the U.S., the people have certain rights to freely express themselves in public spaces, in the mass media (e.g. the web), etc. without being subject to government agency intimidation tactics.

"Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies" is pretty poor advice. How do you define control of the medium? Is it enough to co-locate a server? Get my own T3? Start my own ISP? Buy my own island, create a new independent country, bury cable under the sea floor, start my own ISP, then start my own web site?

A new nation-state for every legal (but controversial) web site, hurrah!

It's very arrogant to pass the judgment "End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all." when that's precisely what's in question here. The discussion is hardly at an end.

Re:When does it stop?

[Pointman]

To follow your Free Speach analogy, you're saying that if I pay a printer to print my manuscript, if the FBI doesn't like it, they can ask the printer not to give me my print order?

I don't think so. Not without a warrant or court order.

Granted, the printer may choose to refuse your business. But if he's not careful about how he does it, or states a (politically incorrect) reason for refusing, he may well have a civil suit on his hands. Or the ACLU picketting his store front and/or filing the suit themselves.

Which makes me wonder, the ACLU hasn't been real swift to take up these issues, I've noticed. But, gee, throw a dangerous punk out of school .....

Until (more) specific laws are passed to differenciate, a lot of the case precedents we've seen so far on 'net related legal issues have followed similar precedents to print or broadcast media.

Re:When does it stop?

[B-Rad]

(I'm replying to Garin's post and not one of the replies because this is a sort of blanket reply to those ones...)

I think what Garin was trying to get across is that if you put your site up on an ISP, that ISP, because they actually own the computers that you're using, can do whatever they want with them. If I own an ISP, I have the freedom to do whatever I want with it (to a limit -- I couldn't use it to promote hate literature or provide a safe haven for criminals, for example). I could, very realistically, refuse to put your page up for no reason. Because I own it means I have the right to do that to you. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that I have to provide to you the means to display your messages.

However, as someone pointed out, the Constitution says something to the effect that the government cannot stem free speech. That's where the Constitutional bit comes in. Did the FBI exert undue pressure upon the ISP to have this guy's site shut down, or did they merely "politely discuss" the possibility of the site coming down? In my view, they overstepped the bounds. If this was a hate-mongering site, then fine, because hate literature isn't protected by the Constitution. However, it appears that this was a simple video clip showing a possible outcome of Y2K. Nothing more serious than what was shown on TV the other day.

I want to know if anybody's actually seen this video. Perhaps it included something about the President being killed in riots. That would be a reason to pull down the site, as that could be construed as a threat uttered against the President, which is illegal.

The basic point here is that we don't have all the facts, and until we get all the facts (which is unlikely in cases such as this) we're just here waving hands at things. I'm not saying that's useless, though, because it's providing debate which should be followed through.

Re:When does it stop?

[Garin]

No, it's not arrogance, it's the truth. Nobody's constitutional rights *were* stomped on. That does not, however, imply that all is happy and good in the world of the web. This is not a happy story, but, unfortunately, the constitution will not help this person in this case.

And I happen to think that finding a medium that you can control *is* good advice. You seem to think there's a way to "take back the web". I'm suggesting that it may be very difficult to "control" the web. Can you "control" television? No. How about radio? No. Can you ever take them back? Maybe, with megabucks, you could. So how about print? Yes, I'd say so, because the cost of entry is practically nil. Scrawl with crayons on old newspapers if you must, but there's a medium you can control. I say we've lost the web as a medium we can control. The idea that any average Joe can immediately publish on the web is false one -- Joe relies on the cooperation of the ISPs/Universities/companies that give him his bandwidth. Joe does *not* have a right to bandwidth, unfortunately.

This means that Joe cannot control the internet, or even a part of it. Joe cannot truly have free speech on line -- not yet, anyhow. Joe won't until he has guaranteed bandwidth that cannot be taken away.

Re:When does it stop?

[Compuser]

Given that the real bandwidth is controlled by
just a few corporations and given that this
trend is growing, I'd say it's not up to us
to keep internet cheap in the long run. We
could indeed unionize and lay our own fiber
but unions usually also fall under sway of
Jimmy Hoffas. Show me an non-rotten union and
I'll show you why you are wrong.
Fundamentally, individualism cannot be promoted
through cooperative activity. You can make a
medium that you control, but then anyone
subscribing to it is under your control, hence
you are running a cult. Individualism can
flourish if either you are in isolation or
if there is no control. Any medium is the
opposite of isolation, and lack of control is
only possible if no commercial interests are
involved. Notice that even on the net,
individualism shows mostly in public forums
such as newsgroups, IRC channels and places
like /. - all non-commercial venues. How many
truly deep, thought-provoking personal
webpages have you come accross in the last month?

Re:When does it stop?

[looie]

One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays. One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays.

However, the FBI (aka The Federal Bureau of Intimidation) was clearly acting in prior restraint, which is completely illegal. The fact that they did it right out in the open shows how far we have travelled down the road toward non-democracy.

mp

Re:When does it stop?

[keyeto]

The point though, is that censorship can be enforced by economic means. The constitutional ammendment intended to protect free speech isn't worth shit, because governments are able to break their own laws as often as they like. It's important to remember that the constitution isn't really intended to protect citizens, it's intended to protect the likes of Ollie North, and support government actions, illegal or not. Private industry will always bow to government pressure because, well, the people who work there need to eat. Resisting an organisation able to say "As we see it, you've got two options: submit to our authority, or starve" is difficult.

We need to make their unethical actions just as diffcult. The only way to do this is by a collective international response. Sites that are censored should be mirrored in many countires. Governments can collude with each other, but that takes considerably more effort than leaning on a single company, and attracts attention to their unethical actions. They don't want that attention, we need to make it work for us.

Re:When does it stop?

[alexhmit01]

You're missing the point. The FBI is not a group of concerned citizens. The are an agency of the Federal government. Therefore, they are NOT permitted to use their power to intimidate. Regardless of the paperwork, the ISP thought the FBI was coming after them.

That has what is known as a chilling affect. Speach that would be protected can be silenced by the government even if the law is on the citizen's side. Even if it isn't close, the government can intimidate, clearly an abuse of the citizen's rights.

Re:When does it stop?

[Portero]

Nice except almost everytime there is a huge barrier to entry into a specific industry you will find a ton of regulation behind that industry. And obviously if there is only one company that makes up an industry, to compete against that company doing the exact same thing - you will lose.
So give me an example of an industry where the barrier to entry is high and there isn't regulation behind it.

BTW, I'll concede that many times industry are the ones to want the regs but its politicos that usually agree and erect the laws. Are companies
evil, no. Just ignorant like anybody else that says 'there ought to be a law!'

Re:When does it stop?

[Kintanon]

One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays.
Similarly, the FBI (or anyone else) does not have to get any sort of legal document to tell an ISP to wipe out your web site. All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this. Then, subject to the agreement that you have with your ISP (which almost ALWAYS protect the ISP, and practically never gives you any say in anything at all), your pages get trashed. End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all.

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.



Ahhh! Excellent, that means I can put that big 'No Blacks Allowed' Sign back outside of my resteraunt! If they want to eat freely they should do so in a medium they control, right?
This guy was paying for his website, no one was being forced to look at it, support it, or even acknowledge it. but he DID pay money for the service he was recieving which should count for something even in this country. Would you be equally as complacent if the FBI had asked your ISP to pull your site? What if they decided to go one step further and yank your 'net access? Maybe decide you were a rabbel rousing dissident who needed to be jailed? After all, if what this man has to say is SO dangerous that the FBI doesn't want it said then he must be 'Evil' right?
You seem to be implying that the person who owns the brick and mortar structure you are using has unlimited authority over who uses that structure. You're wrong. This man is being discrimnated against on the basis of his political beliefs if nothing else. This is shameful and your atitude towards it is equally shameful.

'When they came for the Jews I did not speak up, because I was not a Jew. When they came for the Unions I did not speak up, because I was not in a union. When they came for me no one spoke up, because there was no one left.' Badly Paraphrased, but you get the point.

Kintanon

Re:When does it stop?

[Mr. Slippery]

Which makes me wonder, the ACLU hasn't been real swift to take up these issues, I've noticed.

Excuse me?

The ACLU Cyberliberties page shows what the ACLU is doing about net censorship, encryption regulations, and digital wiretapping. The ACLU has been in the forefront of the fight against net censorship.

Re:When does it stop?

[hey!]

I think its generally accepted that threatening behavior is behavior that a reasonable person would find threatening. Thus, if a motorcycle gang crowds around you brandishing knives, it would be considered threatening behavior even if they weren't pointing the knife at you.

Receiving a call from the US attorney's office and FBI saying they had a problem with a web site you are hosting is going to send a chill down the spine of any ISP. Because the threat is subtle is no reason we should not proscribe this behavior from our law enforcement officials.

What the hell do they think they're doing anyway? If its against the law, enforce the law. If it's not against the law they have no business making "friendly" calls to ISPs with editorial comments.

Re:When does it stop?

[n-baxley]

That may be so, but the fact that the government took an active role in subverting the site makes it a much more serious act. If the ISP didn't like it, fine, he owns the machine, he can take it down. But when the FBI comes in and "nicely asks" for the ISP to take the site down, who is in control. The thought of the FBI taking down any site they think may incite people smacks of communism and repression. What is the world coming to when a website, or any form of publication, can have it's distribution cut off without any legal permission being granted. Obviously, the FBI considers itself above the law and feels that when it comes to them, there is no law. The freedom of speech that is being violated here is so blatantly obvious it pains me. This is not an artist trying to show his nude pictures of women and claim them as art, this is a simple video of what could happen. Just like any other movie such as the recent NBC "Y2K" or "Wag the Dog". What scares me the most is that they seem to have gotten away with it. Nate Baxley

Re:When does it stop?

[miscellaneous]

...hate literature isn't protected by the Constitution

care to shepardize that one?

Re:When does it stop?

[robwicks]

Ahhh! Excellent, that means I can put that big 'No Blacks Allowed' Sign back outside of my resteraunt! If they want to eat freely they should do so in a medium they control, right?

Actually, this is pretty precisely the Libertarian argument, with the addendum that market forces will tend to discourage such overt displays of racism. I think the notion of it being the government which is instigating the discrimination is the the problem.

Re:When does it stop?

[elflord]

Ahhh! Excellent, that means I can put that big 'No Blacks Allowed' Sign back outside of my resteraunt! If they want to eat freely they should do so in a medium they control, right?

Actually, it's like "politely requesting" that blacks don't enter. ( to address the followups about the FBI asking nicely ). Which is not that much different.

Re:When does it stop?

[Mr. Slippery]

I could, very realistically, refuse to put your page up for no reason. Because I own it means I have the right to do that to you. There's nothing in the Constitution that says that I have to provide to you the means to display your messages.

However, my understanding (IANAL) is that if you do start picking and choosing what pages you will or won't put up, you lose your "common carrier" status and have editorial responsibility for everything on your site. You are then a target for libel/slander or other suits regarding that content.

Re:When does it stop?

[Slimbob]

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

Nice generalization, but I want to use a medium that can be accessed via the Internet, and I'm not jacked into the backbone.

Exactly how does one bypass internet service providers? Theoretically, you shouldn't have to worry about illegal censorship since the only one responsible for your content is you, not your ISP, but gov't muscle still talks.

Re:When does it stop?

[Mr. Slippery]

One more thing - according to the article, the ACLU is considering a lawsuit against the FBI over this. So they are on the ball, and my membership money is well spent.

Re:When does it stop?

[Ruddygore]

However, my understanding (IANAL) is that if you do start picking and choosing what pages you will or won't put up, you lose your "common carrier" status and have editorial responsibility for everything on your site. You are then a target for libel/slander or other suits regarding that content.

This is one of those things that has been repeated so often that everyone starts to believe it. It's basically a myth. There is no ISP with common carrier status. Common carrier status is something that has to be specifically granted by the government, and it comes along with a whole lot of regulations that ISPs don't want to deal with.

Re:When does it stop?

[sjames]

All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this.

The problem is, it doesn't sound like they asked very nicely. The ISP didn't say they agreed that the content shouldn't be supported, they said that they were fearful of loosing their business. It sounds like the FBI asked nicely the same way organized crime asks nicely for 'insurance premiums'.

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

So THAT's what I should do with the $5,000,000,000 that's laying around on my coffee table! If you're not a backbone provider, you're susceptable to the tactics reported here.

As a note, the FBI placed the ISP in a really serious position, and will no doubt be FAR away if it ever becomes an issue. ISPs usually depend on a common carrier status to protect them from lawsuits over customer content. If they cut just one site for reasons of content that isn't somehow illegal, they become a 'publisher'. Publishers CAN be sued over what they publish.

This could go two ways, the FBI could either desert the ISP like rats, and let the ISP suffer for helping them, or it could protect them, and be guilty of running a protection racket.

Re:When does it stop?

[danschwarz]

>So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself
>a medium that you control, don't depend on
>renting space from other companies. How you
>do that is up to you.

How do you get a message out to the net without *renting* someone else's resources?

Oh well, back to the soap box on the corner...
:-)

Re:When does it stop?

[villeneuvegod]

While businesses have no obligation to promote or endorse a particular statement or stance, it seems to me that it should have been up to the ISP. For the FBI to conclude that a website is subversive in some way implies that the FBI has formed an opinion. The FBI is a tool used to enforce the law, not interpret those laws.

That they merely had to convince the ISP that the site is a subversive influence is troublesome for two reasons. First, I have not looked at the movie yet, and it may be drivel, like some sort of Kid Rock fantasy he had in 8th grade after his lunchtime acid session, but the FBI are not movie critics or moralists. Secondly, it is obviously a lame-ass ISP.

The fact that the FBI did not go through normal means to resolve this issue is a definite hint that the Constitution was not an issue. Instead, the FBI decided to assume the roles of the entire federal government, Siskel, Ebert AND the entire 700 Club.

USA is the worlds best country!

[CAB]

... so this can't be true!

In USA everybody has freedom!

;-)


Best regards,
Steen Suder

Re:USA is the worlds best country!

[Joshuah]

well, you see the usa IS the worlds best country becaue this guy could sue for lots of $$$. Where else can you do that? What the FBI did was wrong, and he will get them for it. Plain and simple.

Re:USA is the worlds best country!

[Stonehand]

Sounds like your capital's mayor should meet our capital's mayor, and have an ex-con convention...

*chuckle*

Oh, justice here is pretty darn freaky. Locally, we've got judges being nailed for drug use, soliciting prostitutes... we had a local judge flee to Yugoslavia to avoid arrest once. Expect more of the same.

Re:USA is the worlds best country!

[ah42]

"Cause in America,
there is no discrimination
and there is no hipocrasy...
'cause they'll get anybody"
- Arlo Guthrie The Pause of Mr. Clause

--
Orion

Sounds like this thing needs mirroring

[Chemical Serenity]

Get some out of country bandwidth and plop the site down. I doubt the RCMP would bust a site talking about rioting in the states on y2k. In fact, we might read it and chuckle quietly to ourselves. ;)

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

Re:Sounds like this thing needs mirroring

[Chemical Serenity]

When was the last big riot in the states? The OJ thing? If that wasn't directly related to the government I dunno what is...

I haven't actually seen the site. I may never do so. But from the sounds of it, its just some guy with a conspiracy theory about the grunts stirring up shit, presumably to give the appearance of ligitimacy to some kind of martial law. Big fuckin' whoop.

The conspiracy minded would think the FBI has something to hide with this sort of thing, of course. Personally, I don't attribute to malice what can be sufficiently explained as incompetance.

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

Re:Sounds like this thing needs mirroring

[MikeBabcock]

Of course not, we (being a Canadian myself) don't ever pepper spray students who are peacefully protesting a foreign government official.

Mind you, I think the students were out of line, but so was the RCMP.

I'd still like to see 8 dozen copies of this site go up (anyone remember the stupid Barbie site that was brought down a couple years ago?) if its not a hoax.

- Michael T. Babcock <homepage>

Re:Sounds like this thing needs mirroring

[HavokDevNull]

I'll mirror it. I'm not afraid of the big bad FBI. even though I should be. Anybody Else willing to?? Remember, There is power in numbers.

...

[Chemical Serenity]

"we" being Canadians, of course. I'm not an RCMP, nor likely will I ever be.

There is an RCMP detachment just down the street from me though. Maybe they're listening in.

--
rickf@transpect.SPAM-B-GONE.net (remove the SPAM-B-GONE bit)

IANAL

[miscellaneous]

I this this is a horrible thing, a constitutional violation on a major scale.

The funny (scary?) thing is, the US Army probably could have gotten a preliminary injunction against the site, if they sued for libel. I don't really see how this isn't libel, especially considering that a not-insignificant number of people seemed to believe it came from the army, and it was being presented as though it was...

Re:IANAL

[Beede]

I don't really see how this isn't libel....

How do you libel the government? I thought that political free speech was the most strongly protected of all. You can't even libel an office-holder unless you mention them by name....

Re:IANAL

[miscellaneous]

That is a problem: can you libel an organization instead of an individual? Plus, to boot, political speech is correctly more highly protected than any other.

However, I'm not sure if (legally or morally) this gives you the right to try to convince people that the government is liable for a specific wrongdoing for which it is not.

Besides, didn't the DoD threaten to sue ABC or somebody over a story they did about wiping out roundeyes in North Vietnam with Sarin gas or something, a few years back?

Re:IANAL

[miscellaneous]

That should have been "a governmental organization..."

Re:IANAL

[Stonehand]

You're thinking of a recent (in my view...) CNN report, in which a couple of reporters conveyed the impression that US forces used chemical weapons to spray defectors in 'Nam. As it turns out, they didn't have hard evidence, did a goodly bit of selective quoting (with their interviewees repudiating the conclusions), and both got canned. CNN had at least (some) reputation to keep, and there had been a rash of reporters found to have twisted or sometimes completely made up "facts" to write sometimes-Pulitzer-prize-winning articles.

I don't recall any suit, however, and given how often the Gov't *is* libelled, they may not actually have the power to do more than call a press conference.

Oh man

[True Dork]

This is a HORRIBLE precedent. This needs mirroring.

I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door :P)

Re:Oh man

[jareds]

I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door :P)

If you read the article, you'd know that the FBI and U.S. Attorney's Office contacted his host and intimidated them into taking it down.

In your case, they'd probably just intimidate whoever's upstream from you (seems to be Comstar), and get them to deactivate your connection.

Re:Oh man

[True Dork]

That's precisely what I was curious about. I dont understand how the FBI or any other three letter agency can force an ISP to disrupt service over a perceived threat. If it's a vhost and the ISP decides they dont want any part in it, that's easy, a conf file will be edited. But disconnecting a whole subnet? That would sure suck. My reason for wondering is this: I've been considering offering hosting for open source projects within my domain that simply need a home for no charge. I've been wondering what the consequences could be (I saw what went on with DeCSS). Having my whole subnet cut off because I stood my ground on freedom of speech for a third party could be (to put it MILDLY) a pain in the ass. I want to help, but I dont have as many guns as they do. ;)

Re:Oh man

[Kris_J]

In your case, they'd probably just intimidate whoever's upstream from you (seems to be Comstar), and get them to deactivate your connection.

Umm, America isn't the world - just mirror it "off-shore". If you've pissed off the US establishment, I'm sure there are plenty of middle-east sites that would host for free ;)

Re:Oh man

[pen]

I dont understand how the FBI or any other three letter agency can force an ISP to disrupt service over a perceived threat.

Very simple (a quote from the article):

Wieger later apologized to Z. in an e-mail: "To us a $75 job is not worth losing our business over. . . . We regret that this has happened and to lose you as a customer."

It seems that it is now extremely easy to get someone's site taken down, unless they run their own web server, provide their own bandwidth, and do everything else on their own. All that is required is to threaten one of the providers (webspace, server, ISP, etc.) and the site is promptly taken down. This is pretty scary.

--

Re:Oh man

[Xidus]

I'm extremely curious about how it got taken down though. I'm assuming a vhost? What happens if you run your own server (like I do)? Do guys in trenchcoats who talk to their watches show up at your door? (good luck at MY door :P)

You may run your own server, but who provides your bandwidth? Unless you have cables running out the window to the MAE-East building next door, you're going to have a hard time staying connected if the powers that be don't want you connected. Where there's brute strength, there's a way.
-
$ more ~/.sig
******** .sig: Not a text file ********

Re:Oh man

[jareds]

The post I responded said something like: "I have my own server. What are they going to do, come to my door and take it down?" I assumed he was talking about having his own server in the US, since if he was in another country, the FBI wouldn't come knocking on his door.

Can you say...Overstepping the boundary!

[Brian29]

It is scary when they can cut someones first amendment rights without even making it "official" with a court order. This is just another example of our government overstepping its "rights" and infringing on ours simply be "they can". It is stupid and should scare us all. Brian

What about the NBC Movie?

[Quaternion]

I think that, given the recent "Y2K: The Movie" from NBC, this is pretty frickin' ridiculous. I read the article; the local sheriff's department called him to intimidate him? Give me a break. I don't know where I really come down on the political spectrum, but I can only shake my head when someone confuses "safety" with "free-speech" in this way.

I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who originally wrote the Supreme Court opinion about "clear and present danger" being a rationale for restricting speech, especially in wartime. I think that the "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" is the classical example. But this is not *nearly* the same thing.

Re:What about the NBC Movie?

[Runna^Muck]

My question exactly. The first question I'd have for whoever made this decision is "What about NBC? Why were they allowed to show their movie?"
My guess, little guy, easy to shutdown, NBC, major news coverage, major tap dancing, major 'splaining to do.
Bottom line is the FBI isn't really concerned with public "safety". Far more people saw the NBC movie than will ever see this guy's website. Most likely someone at the FBI was surfing, saw the site and decided to try and make a name for themselves internally so when performance reviews come around he/she's looking good.

Re:What about the NBC Movie?

[Quaternion]

The "crowded theater" example fit so beautifully here. I totally agree!

Yeah.. the original URL for the website that was taken down was "crowdedtheater.com", or something like that. You're right, it's an interesting analogy for the Y2K thing. Whether it's a good analogy or not is a whole 'nother (interesting) question.

Re:What about the NBC Movie?

[NightParrot]

Paradoxically, Holmes coined the "clear and present danger" doctrine to justify repressing speech that actually presented an utterly vague and indefinite danger. (Anarchist exhorted young men not to enlist in the armed forces during wartime; Schenck v. U.S.) One of those things that galls me so bad I sometimes wish I hadn't looked it up.

Re:What about the NBC Movie?

[NightParrot]

Bah. Make that "Socialist exhorted draftees to resist the draft". Must be getting old.

Re:What about the NBC Movie?

[rde]

The slashdot header is a bit misleading; the page wasn't about a y2k riot; it was a blair-witch-type documentary on the army instigating a riot for the express purpose of beating the shit out of (pick a minority).

My question: if the feds did this without a warrant or subpoena or whatever legal piece of paper is appropriate for this sentence, then they just 'asked' the provider to take the page down. Given that they had no legal backing whatsoever, does this constitute abuse of power? If it does, is this illegal?

Re:What about the NBC Movie?

[Art Tatum]

I think that the "crying 'fire' in a crowded theater" is the classical example. But this is not *nearly* the same thing. No kidding. This is more like talking about fires in theatres. BTW, having read the description of Y2K: The Movie on NBC's site, I would have to say that their incredibly stupid movie is more offensive (by sheer cheesiness if nothing else) than this guy's movie.

Sniff Sniff! I smell a law suit!

[Greyfox]

IANAL, but I'm sure a the artist could make a civil suit stick. Possibly against the ISP, definitely against the FBI since it sounds like they did a very nice job of violating due process and his first ammendment rights. The only thing I'm sure they can shut you down for immediately is kiddie porn.

Since his ISP shut him down, does that mean they couldn't be considered a common carrier and should be held responsible for all content their users are supplying? That could be a sticky legal situation to be in...

Re:Sniff Sniff! I smell a law suit!

[ocie]

What's more, this guy is an artist, so they are not only depriving him of free speech, they are depriving him of income. If he was expecting millions of hits to generate tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue, they have taken that away from him!

Re:Sniff Sniff! I smell a law suit!

[Joshuah]

ive never likes lawsuits, but this is just cause. Hell, id send him some money. What the FBI did was WRONG. No court order or anything. And if i was this guy, id post the information on another domain. What he is not doing anything wrong, and the FBI cant touch him until they get a court order....

Re:Sniff Sniff! I smell a law suit!

[Anonymous Coward]

The FBI can touch him because they have the guns. You can't sue the federal government without the federal government's permission. When the administration has FBI files on all prominent members of the loyal opposition to blackmail them, the administration can (and does) rule by Executive Order.

what about other countries?

[[Bruce]]

I live in Australia and am forced to wonder what power does the US government have over sites not hosted in the US? Could this site be relocated internationally and be protected this way? Just how much of America thinks the they are the center of the universe (please do not take offence at this, im mainly picking on the government)

Re:what about other countries?

[Runna^Muck]

We are the center of the universe, lol.
But you have a point, I wonder myself what the hell these people are thinking trying to regulate the internet when they know damn well that it is world wide and anything they try to do won't be enforceable. I get the impression Congress does think they are the center of the universe. I would love to see this site hosted outside the U.S.

Re:what about other countries?

[Buggernut]

Good thinking. I'll provide a home for it, provided it doesn't offend my sensibilities and contravene Canadian law. What better place to station it than just 30 miles away from the USA national boundary in Beautiful Vancouver BC.

My address, btw, is billy@cafe.net.

Re:what about other countries?

[[Bruce]]

"we are the greatest nation in the world" Says who?

Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?!

[gregstoll]

Actually, it says in the article that the ACLU is considering a lawsuit...

Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?!

[Quaternion]

First the incident in Idaho, then, Waco. In both cases, FBI had ILLEGALLY TRAMPLED ON THE RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE, and NOW, with the BILL KLINGON AT THE HELM, they are doing it again.

Whoa there. Choose a side, huh? Is it the "fascist" (read: conservative) law enforcement officers at the FBI? Or is it the (more liberal) "Bill Klingon?"

Why are we letting the FBI trampling on our rights? Don't FBI understand the PRINCIPLES of which the United States Of America is built upon?

Just a guess here, but I think it's because we (as a people) really don't understand what the "Principles" of the US are... I mean, some people value personal safety, others value free speech. I think both are provided for in the Constitution, but the debate's on the degree to which they're emphasized.

Why are we, the PEOPLE, allowed such things keep on happening?!

Um, because there is no monolithic "PEOPLE" anymore, especially when it comes to an issue like this.

The "crowdedtheater" name of the website seems to be a reference to the "yelling fire in a crowded theater" example of speech which can and should be restricted; i.e., speech which can cause direct and immediate harm to other people. I think that we rightly restrict people from making *clearly* dangerous threats on the lives and health of others. But in a case like this, it's ridiculous that the FBI and local sheriff's department just went and demanded the removal of the website without any sort of external review/permission. We hire and pay officers to protect the public safety. But when their actions would impinge on other rights as citizens, you *must* have some sort of external review (like a judge who would issue a warrant, or some such) to grant some modicum of legitimacy to these kinds of dealings...

Um, Ok.

[viper21]

So should I register www.y2k-chaos.com?

Watch out, the world is going to end...

Watch out!!! The FBI is going to censor /. because I said that.

*** HEY ***
Check out the new case I made at the url above, in the computers section.

-S
Scott Ruttencutter

Does anyone have this archived?

[Cplus]

It seems to me that if the FBI haven't taken any official legal action then it isn't illegal to put up a mirror. Particularly if it is out of US jurisdiction.

It seems very odd to me that the FBI would take a step like this just to prevent further Y2K paranoia. Very suspicious indeed, but then their actions have brought even more attention to the matter.

I am always greatly disturbed when I hear of an ISP dropping content because of threats and lawsuits or in this case, the request of law enforcement. Are there ISP's out there that guarantee the placement of content until a court forces removal?

Re:Does anyone have this archived?

[Runna^Muck]

That's a good idea. How about starting an organization of people who have the ability to host sites. Call it the FreeNet Coalition, then in cases like this, almost immediately 20, 30, 40 or more mirror sites popup all over the world. There's no way they could shut them all down.
I might actually have to start looking into that.

Re:Does anyone have this archived?

[treat]

It would also be a good idea if people hosting web sites that are likely to be shut down would post a link to a .tar.gz of the entire site. That way thousands of people can conveniently provide a free off-site backup. Associate a version number with it, so that the backup can be occasionally updated.

We should always be thinking of ways to use the net to protect our freedom, because it's the most powerful tool yet.

Re:Does anyone have this archived?

[Seanasy]

It'd be nice to have emergency backup DNS too. So you'd have Freenet Coalition DNS service which, when a site is shut down, will immediately update DNS records to point to an offshore mirror of the site. You can't count on your ISP to do this for you.

Re:Does anyone have this archived?

[greenrd]

Or this? MirrorCentral is different to FreeNet - FreeNet is a great idea, but it's software and will take time to develop and deploy. In the meantime MirrorCentral is the kind of solution that Runna^Muck proposed.

Re:Nothing more to say

[Lando]

Hmmm,
Hosting... Well seeing as there is not an actual court order having to do with this, I would be able to host the site as well. If my ISP, grin, shuts me down I'll just sue them for breach of contract, ie my provider is a common carrier.

Lando

Parody?

[pnevares]

So if "Z" hadn't stated he didn't know if it was legit or not, but had instead stated explicitly that it was a parody, would the Fuzz still have shut him down?

Either way, I think this sets another bad precedent where the U.S. Attorney's Office and/or the FBI can pull any and all private content at will. If they hold this power, why haven't they exercized it earlier? Reason: because they DON'T have it.


Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".

Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?!

[gooser23]

considering what chaos goes on during any other ney year's, i think i have to side with the FBI on this one. The last time we had a turn of the century, people thought the world was commming to an end. Lucikly back then the average smoe didn't have access to firearms. Not to say that there are more kooks these days, but it sure feels like today's kooks have a lot more venues to rise terror towards people who don't really want to be terrorized. Why do terrorists/anarchists/whateverists have a higher profile? well.... freedom of speech and press and such. The spread of information inherentally includes the freedom of malicious speech, and threatening press. There are probally thousands of creeps out there waiting for an excuse to blow someone's head off. If we go around saying how much turmoil the turn of the century is going to be, we are creating targets of ourselfs (that is, as non-creeps). I'd rather have a bit of regulation on speculation then get a shank in my side. even so, i'm still gona stay indoors, away from windows with a bat at my side. remember, this is also the turn of the millenium, not just of the century. I will not be surprised to see kooks and religous nuts both get hammered for their radical behaviors. Keep in mind if you feel like replying to this that i do not like what the FBI has done, but it is the lesser, and safer of the two evils.


_______________

FBI shuts down NBC

[RabidChipmunk]

Video about rioting on NewYears?

So when does NBC go off the air?

-sh

Inevitable

[antizeus]

The Constitution means nothing anymore. The second amendment is violeted by bans on certain models of rifle, sawed-off shotguns, etc. The fourth amendment is in tatters thanks in part to the war on some drugs. The federal government does a bunch of stuff not specifically authorized by the Constitution despite the tenth amendment. It was only a matter of time before the first amendment got flushed down the toilet. (Here it was violated in spirit if not in letter.)

Now, I know the Constitution isn't perfect, but it's a lot better than the system we've got.

Re:Inevitable

[Runna^Muck]

Off topic, but I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can have all the single shot, muzzle loading muskets you want. No one needs an assault rifle, no one needs a handgun. The second amendment says nothing about regulating the type of "arms". Would you like your next door neighbor to have a nuclear weapon? I didn't think so.
When's the last time you heard of someone successfully protecting his home and family because he had a gun, versus the number of people killed because someone got pissed off, or a child got ahold of a gun?
I'm looking forward to the day when I can turn on the news and see a story about some disgruntled Post Office employee going berserk with a baseball bat. No offense to Postal Employees.

Re:Inevitable

[Forward The Light Br]

umm I am as unhappy about the website stickup as anyone, but you are wrong here.

All our rights are limited, as there NEEDS to be a balance between individual rights and societal rights, as well as between two individuals' rights

for example, society as a whole must respect your right to speak, but need not condone your saying it at 500 decibles, or right in front of my house...

a journalist can print whatever he likes, but not the proceedings of an ongoing court case (if the judge seals it)
(here the accused's due process trumps the 1st amendment)

the whole issue is whether there exists a "compelling interest"

the government has a compelling interest in listening in on criminal phonecalls; hence why, with court permission, they can tap phones...

the government can ignore FOIAs if they request "classified data" because the court (and most normal folk) recognize that the government has a compelling interest in keeping military data out of newspapers

the tenth amendment is enforced, but the fed gets around it in legal ways (for ends that at least I think are valid, ie the FDA, the EPA, etc) by either invoking interstate commerce regulation or by getting state gov'ts to pass laws by dangling money in front of them.

This is legal, and allows the fed to do things we need done that 18th century merchants did not forsee...

the government is not supposed to live inside the spirit of any document; if it did, we would not need a constitution (the British method would be ideal if we trusted the spirit of anything, as then you get flexibility and ideals)

our premise for out government is no-trust power balancing... the popular phrase is seperation of powers...

now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened.

It is legal to be controvertial/against mainstream... But it is plain stupid to expect it to be as easy as conforming. You have no right to the gov't not asking companies to cooperate. The gov't represents the majority of Americans, who generally fear terrorists more than weak encryption, and would say to the disenfrachised website owner "just because you can publish that, why _should_ you"

now I personally dont have a prob with that website, the way it was described, but I do take issue to ACs who slept through civics, but think they know enough to comment on the rather complex reasons that our legal system is the way it is...
We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars --Oscar Wilde

Re:Inevitable

[Deosyne]

now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened.

I see... so the fact that the ISP feared losing its business doesn't demonstrate an implied threat? When is the business of a government agency to determine what published content should be made available to the public? To label the content of this website as illegal would be as ridiculous as banning the Blair Witch Project or Y2K, the Movie. So where does the FBI get the authority to do this? Maybe they'll take exception to this story and the associated threads that go with it and ask that Slashdot be taken down because of it, and when Rob and Co. tell them to bury it up their asses, the FBI will "ask" Andover.Net to remove the site. Sound silly? Its the same damned thing! The FBI is a law enforcement agency! As this site violated no laws, the FBI has absolutely no right or reason to become involved in its affairs. Perhaps the Department of State would like to do some law enforcement so that Customs can pass some trade legislation while we're at it.

It is legal to be controvertial/against mainstream... But it is plain stupid to expect it to be as easy as conforming. You have no right to the gov't not asking companies to cooperate. The gov't represents the majority of Americans, who generally fear terrorists more than weak encryption, and would say to the disenfrachised website owner "just because you can publish that, why _should_ you"

It is not the job of the FBI to interpret the law; that is the job of the courts. And who are they to question the motivations of the owner of a website that is not violating any laws?!? I don't give a reeking rat's ass if the FBI mailed their request to the website owner and his ISP on perfumed stationary with a box of chocolates, they still had no goddamned reason to have any interactions with anyone involved with the website.

I'm beginning to feel real fear living in America, the land where 13 year old boys are arrested for a paper that they write for class, the land where the creator of a silly Y2K mockumentary is harassed by the government into censorship, the land where the rights and freedoms once held so dear are quickly being rended into smoke and mirrors used only to pacify the masses while our true freedom is being raped right in front of us.

I'm beginning to fear for my child's future.

Deosyne

Re:Inevitable

[Malcontent]

"now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened."

The problem is that FBI can coerce someone to shut down a web site just by asking. They know nobody wants to be dragged to court so they make a couple of vauge threats in the process of asking and voila no pesky court orders or that stupid constitution getting in the way.
One can only hear the conversation now...

If you don't shut down that site we will comb through your web servers till we find some child pornography you don't want that do happen do you? We will give your name to the IRS for an audit. You don't want that to happen do you? Look what happened to the people who got in Ken Starr's way, they are all in debt up to their necks. you don't want that to happen do you? So won't you please take that web site down. Good boy now go sit.

Re:Inevitable

[Deosyne]

While I too don't want assult rifles and other fun toys like that being easily available, I would like to say that these weapon regulations are arguably against the letter and spirit of the 2nd Amendment. After all, the Constitution was penned just after the USA had revolted against its government, there was already a respectable army in place, respectable enough to succeed at the aforementioned revolt and the 2nd Amendment is the "2nd" Amendment, put in before most other rights in the Bill of Rights and just after freedom of speech, press, etc. Therefore, I would imagine that the "militia" referred to is by the people to prevent a relapse of government tyranny. These days, the government has soldiers equipped with assault rifles, grenades, missiles, smart bombs and if the fighting gets really nasty, they can pull out chem/bio/nuke weapons. The average citizen has to jump through hoops to get anything more than a revolver.

Some would say that the government is happily pissing all over the letter and the spirit of the 2nd Amendment. But like I said above, I certainly don't want assault weapons to be freely available; I'm simply playing devil's advocate here. But to tie this in with the topic of discussion: with the government violating more and more civil liberties on a daily basis, what could we possibly do when they decide to quit playing head games and just come out and declare the USA a socialist state? Not a hell of a lot with a six-shooter when facing body armor clad killers carrying rifles and high explosives who can call on an airstrike at a moments notice.

If you want to do yourselves and your children a favor, just start teaching those around you to recite, "I love the State; the State is love" because if the government decides that you'll say that, then that is what you will say, unless, of course, you escape to another country or die. If it doesn't happen, then good, it doesn't happen, but it never hurts to be prepared, since fighting is pretty much out of the question. Now go ahead and disregard me as a lunatic talking out of his ass; that's what they want you to do anyway, so that's what you will do.

Deosyne

Re:Inevitable

[Detritus]

If that same argument was applied to the First Amendment (Freedom of Speech), the federal government could censor any speech that used television, radio or high-speed assault printing presses.

In my opinion, the Second Amendment should protect my right to possess any weapon that the U.S. Army issues to an infantry soldier, including assault rifles, pistols, grenades and light machine guns. These are the modern equivalent of the musket.

Re:Inevitable

[err head]

boy you are clueless aren't you?
far more crimes are stopped by lawful use of guns in self defense then the numbers of accidental deaths. Cars cause a vastly larger number of deaths and injuries than all guns put together in america
states where conecealed carried laws are enacted get see a significant drop in crime
the ozzies banned the vast majority of guns and saw their crime rates soar afterwards
englands heavy gun regulation means that home invasion burglaries have been on a constant rise

but hey, don't let any facts interfere with you deeply held beliefs that guns are pure evil. Just swallow everything the corporate media feeds into your brain and be happy

Re:Inevitable

[UnknownSoldier]

> with a devil in the details of ID cards, tax returns and pension contracts

Can you show me the law that REQUIRES me to have a social security number, or tax-payers number?

I'll save you some time. There is none.

You can live, work, etc without one.

I point you to the Taco Bell case. Search the net for "Taco Bell Social Security".
Here is one link to get you started:
http://www.coolmedia.net/ice/tacobe~1.htm

Cheers

Re:Inevitable

[medcalf]

Sure. But the things that you can do without an SSN in the US are limited more each day. You cannot vote now without one. You cannot drive now without one. You cannot get a job without one unless you fall into certain very difficult to get into categories (oddly enough, like working for the Congress!). Effectively, a normal life requires a social security number.

Your papers, please?

-jeff

Re:Inevitable

[UnknownSoldier]

> You cannot drive now without one.

International Driver's Permit. Valid in over 200 countries. ( I have one. )


> You cannot get a job without one

I work as a contractor, not as an employee.


Yes it IS possible to live, work w/o a SSN.

Re:Inevitable

[Kintanon]

Just to comment, the second amendment guarantees the right to bear arms *to form a militia*. It doesn't guarantee 1) what *type* of arms, and 2) that those arms will go completely unmoderated... and I don't think *anyone* sees a necessity to own automatic assault rifles in their own homes, other than nutballs that need such guns kept *far* away from them

According to the founding fathers every able bodied man in this country is part of the militia.
A militia should be effectively armed in a manner which would allow them to contend with armed troops. I'd say having government issued M-16s would be perfectly acceptable. All other regulations would stay in place and be more enforced, and anyone being issued an m-16 would have to A. Have no criminal record, B. Be certifiably sane, C. be 25 years old.

Kintanon

Re:Inevitable

[poink]

You cannot vote now without one

My voter registration card says that the SSN is optional.

Re:Inevitable

[Eccles]

now in this case nothing illegal has occurred... he was not charged with anything, the FBI _asked_ the ISP to take down the site, the ISP prob had a clause in the contract that allowed them to do so at anytime, provided they handed back that month's money or whatever... and that is what happened.

Read the bleepin' article.

'When Z. refused to pull his site, the FBI and the U.S. Attorney's office contacted Z.'s host, BECamation, the next day. And that was all it took. "I had no choice but to pull the site down completely or I would have lost my business," says Mark Wieger, BECamation's president, who feared that his own ISP would cut him off.'

The ISP didn't want to take it down, it FEARED the consequences of government action.

Re:Inevitable

[Kintanon]

Off topic but I've said it before and I'll say it again. You can say all the inoffensive things you want. No one needs to say controversial things, no one needs to say offensive things.



I find your statement to be HIGHLY offensive and demand that you be censored in the future and your posts to slashdot be automatically deleted.

Kintanon

Re:Inevitable

[treat]

There may not be a law that requires you to have an SSN, but it's sure difficult to live without one.

Every time I am asked for my SSN for a new reason, I question it. I rarely am given a choice. To get a bank account, I had to give it, and proof of it. To get a job, as well (both for the I9 form and for taxes). To get a driver's license I had to show proof of it (though I was allowed to make my driver's license number different from my SSN). I had to give it up for an apartment, though I didn't have to show proof. You need a credit check before moving into some apartments - in some areas, the majority of decent ones are like this. You also need an SSN for credit cards, house and car loans, phone service, and electrical service sometimes.

It's not easy to live a normal life in the US without an SSN. You have to either go without the things that you need them for, commit some crime to get them (in some cases you may only have to be deceptive without committing a crime), or rely on other people.

Re:Inevitable

[treat]

International Driver's Permit. Valid in over 200 countries. ( I have one. )

Aren't those invalid in the country you're a citizen of?

Re:Inevitable

[theJeff]

According to the founding fathers every able bodied man in this country is part of the militia.
A militia should be effectively armed in a manner which would allow them to contend with armed troops.

I want to be in the part that gets issued the F-16 or the tanks. I'd say these would be needed to contend effectively with any modern military force.
At a bare minimum, we should have the right to such common militia/guerilla weapons as mortars, rpgs, SAMs etc. M-16's are nice, but if that's all you've got, there's no point in even trying to contend with even a 3rd rate army.

(I shouldn't have posted, but I like this idea.)
thejeff

Re:Inevitable

[NMerriam]

When's the last time you heard of someone successfully protecting his home and family because he had a gun

Shit, man -- you need to get out more. Happens about every freaking day.

Coincidentally enough, if you actually teach kids about guns rather than locking them in a box and hoping they never see one, they will be very responsible with them.

In the 1800's, when the rite of manhood was getting a gun at 11, do you think everyone was being blown away by these trigger-happy kids? Hell, no -- only romantic nincompoops who have never actually SEEN violence except in movies think that gunning people down is going to solve problems.

Think of it this way -- has promoting abstinence solved the problem of teenage pregnancy? No, because they're going to have sex whether you like it or not. teach them how to do it safely and your problem is at least mitigated. Similarly, America will never give up guns, so the only way to promote safety is to require "safe gun" classes.

BTW, I don't own a gun and never have. I don't like them, but I recognize why people do, and I don't have such a myopic view of history that I think the second amentdment is about protecting the rights of "hunters". Of course assault rifles only kill people -- thats what most of the founding fathers had just spent years doing much more slowly...

Re:Inevitable

[AngryMob]

Forget about sawed-offs and other restrictions. The second amendment says unambiguously that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, period, with no exceptions, and this has not been amended at all, as far as i'm aware. But you still have: the ATF. Which does what? regulates firearms. Well, damn. I don't care if you support gun control or not, but this sort of blatant unconstitutionality is RAMPANT and EVIL. If we can't even be assured of basic rights granted to us in the constitution (free speech, right to bear arms, etc.), then what do we have?

Hey, look, our civil rights are being air-lifted away! Bye-bye! bye!

SA

Re:Inevitable

[sjames]

why don't you compare the number of people killed by firearms (per capita, to make it fair) in the US versus Australia and the UK? Or is murder less important than "home invasion burglaries"?

A more fair comparison would be people killed by any means. If you can't get a gun, rat poison or a baseball bat (or cricket, your choice) will do just as well. For the discriminating mass murderer, there's always a molitov cocktail in a crowded building. For the really desperate, go to a concert, wait till the crowd is packed like cattle, and yell out, 'Look there's [insert name of star here]'.

Re:Inevitable

[Stonehand]

Oh, hell. Been reading comp.os.linux.misc lately?

Re:Inevitable

[AxelBoldt]

The second amendment says unambiguously that the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, period, with no exceptions, and this has not been amended at all, as far as i'm aware.

That's not what it says. Look it up. The Supreme Court has never acknowledged a private person's right to own guns. The NRA knows that, and never challenges gun control measures before the high court (they only scream "Second Amendment!" but never act on it), they would without doubt be laughed out of the chamber. The Second Amendment allows well-regulated armed state militias, that's all. This is the consensus of all supreme court judges and all constitutional scholars.

--

Re:Inevitable

[villeneuvegod]

The 2nd Amendment is also very specific. It unquestionably states that the militia that everybody keeps talking about must be 'well regulated.' That does NOT mean that any loser can have an AR-15. It means that if you are interested in defending your country you may feel free to arm yourself.

Sadly, most of the people in the gun lobby have no interest in defending their country. Intead they are looking to defend principles and property. And not from tyranny. People who feel the need to be armed to the teeth live in fear, and I do not understand. And sadly, this has nothing to do with naivete, but instead experience.

If the government can't manage gun control, which is something gun lovers regularly point out, then how do they expect them to regulate a militia, let alone do it well. That people don't see that guns are the problem in this equation is more troubling than actual people with guns. Do you see any murders in the military using tanks or M-16s? The largest concentration of weapons in the world (excluding Charlton Heston's sock drawer), and nothing ever happens for two reasons: having been in the military, I can assure you that it was WELL REGULATED, and that I was taught something that no pawn shop owner can teach any angry kid or postal worker.

And you know what? If you want to find out what it is, feel free to put your name on the dotted line.

Until the U.S. Government takes an active roll not in determining who gets guns, but instead to teach qualified people to respect the responsibility of owning one, we will continue to have kids and day traders go on rampages.

Wanna plan? You may keep your gun at your house, but you have to go to a real, genuine militia-affiliated shooting range to shoot it. And you get training, and you can train your 3 year old and do whatever you want. But you get no bullets unless you feel the need to hunt. All the bullets are kept in a vault at your little clubhouse. Of course that's the first place the Blue Berets will look, so keep them under the clubhouse matress with that dogearred Playboy.

Re:Inevitable

[Sandor at the Zoo]

Bzzz. Thanks for playing, try again later. The 2nd Amendment uses the same phrase "the people" as is in the 1st and 4th amendments. The 10th clearly differentiates betweeen "the people" and "states", so it's not like they're interchangeable.

Check out the recent Emerson case in Texas -- the 2nd Amendment guarantees individual rights. The initial clause is explanatory in why the founders thought they needed to enumerate the right, but it's not restrictive.

Read it this way:
"A well-educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

It's pretty clear that the right is individual and absolute.

Have a nice day.

Re:Inevitable

[AxelBoldt]

It's pretty clear that the right is individual and absolute.

It may be clear to you, but your opinion doesn't count. What counts is the interpretation of the Supreme Court. Take your favorite gun control measure and try to challenge it before the Supreme Court, we'll see how far you go.

Of course, neither you nor the NRA will do that, because they know that they will lose since their interpretation of the 2nd is wrong. They don't want to let this little dirty secret get out though. That's why, whenever new gun control measures are debated, the NRA screams "Unconstitutional!" but when the measures are passed, they never challenge them. Their lawyers are too smart for that.

--

Motives

[borzwazie]

Without having seen the site myself, I can't say whether or not the FBI had good reason or not to coerce the ISP to remove the site.

This is something I do know. You readers of Slashdot know, and I know, that life will go on, despite computer downtime. Computer downtime is a fact of life to us. But you do not understand the complete sheep-like fear of the unknown that non-computer-savvy people have.

Computers are the magic that glues their lives together. They don't know, nor do they want to know, how computers really work. And, in this ignorance, they see the movie industry hyping doom, countless 20/20 type interviews hyping doom, commercials hyping doom, so what else are they to believe? Computers are as much as magic to these people as quantum physics are to me. (Hey, C and java, no problem. Schrodinger? Whatever :) )

The combined panic of thousands of people could cause a breakdown, when no other conditions for breakdown exist. Want proof? Look no further than the riots in L.A. after the Rodney King trial. Bank runs could destroy our current fractional banking system. So the real question here is, is the FBI trying to protect their interests, or everyone's? Are they removing the equivelent of a man screaming "FIRE!" in a crowded theatre?

Re:Motives

[pb]

Would you be allowed to do this if there *were* a fire in a crowded theatre? I don't think calmly saying "ahem. No problem, just a fire..." would have a very different effect.

Similarly, the extent of the Y2K problem is hotly under debate, and will be until, say, sometime after Jan. 1st, 2000... Therefore, one person's interpretation of events is very much still free speech. And if we don't believe him... well, we don't have to. The problem is, many people are harboring doubts, and this man is not alone...

And is everyone shouting doom? If so, shouldn't the FBI go after *them*? No, this doesn't make much sense, something is definitely missing. Are we just out of real news, here, guys?
---
pb Reply or e-mail rather than vaguely moderate.

Re:Motives

[Runna^Muck]

I agree people who aren't familiar with computers will be more likely to panic due to their fear of the unknown. However the bigger question is, besides the fact of whether or not they had the right to do this, why was NBC allowed to show their movie? If the FBI was so concerned with the public panicking(?).

Re:Motives

[Stonehand]

Cynically? The local residents decided to impose a _100%-Off Sale_ at many of the local shops.

Re:Motives

[hypatia]

But you do not understand the complete sheep-like fear of the unknown that non-computer-savvy people have.

Isn't that a bit of a generalisation?

I worry about how the "users are idiots" mentality is spreading. Some are, but most just don't know anything and aren't interested. There's a difference between that and being a fool. They have different priorities - perhaps understanding quantum mechanics. They see computers as tools that are meant to save time, or make a task easier in some way.
People who read /. are more likely to see a computer as a complex misture of toy and tool - not only something to get something else done with, but something to take apart or build on, and probably something that earns them money.

'Ordinary' people, if they display "sheep-like" fear of computers, do so often because they've been burned by computers - Windoze has crashed or their printer stopped working just as they printed out that thesis or somthing. Or they plain didn't save their work.

And they do know that computers "are the magic that glues their lives together". And thus, from their own experiences with computers, they build upon their image of the computer as faulty tool, and possibly of programmers as anti-social or what you will, and the publicised magnitude of the Y2K problem and see planes falling out of the sky.

Treating them with contempt isn't going to solve the problem. That just scares them more. In the same way you might be scared if quantum physics is harnessed as a tool, and your quantum-admin keeps doing funky things with the location/momentum of your quantum tools and smirks down at you when you wonder why it is a bit hazy today...

I think of this as one of the greatest problems in computer (esp. software) design today - how to design something that can be used as a tool by Ms I-Just-Want-It-To-Print-Dammit, and at the same time be picked apart by Ms Hacker?

Take the ordinary folk seriously. You are not a world unto yourself.

post it! That means you /.

[azlok]

What is really scary is all the posts about the film yet no film. Why didn't /. post it? Come on /. lets see if you can put the money where your mouth is. You often post stories like this (such as the dvd keys) to gain our eyes yet you take no resposibilty for your apparent ideology. This goes for the Village voice as well. joshua 'hook' corning

Re:post it! That means you /.

[Runna^Muck]

What? Slashdot has no responsiblity to post anything. They take submissions from people and post the ones they think are the most interesting or important and give people a forum for discussing it. What makes you think they have any "responsiblity" to mirror anything? Where's the link to your mirror of the video? I must've missed it.

so call me cynical, but...

[%systemroot%]

...isn't this exactly what the "artist" intended? By the FBI's apparent unconstitutional censorship, he ends up with far more press than he would have gotten if his poor-taste stunt had been left to be ignored.

This does not excuse the FBI's behavior, but points to a lack of intelligent leadership in the Bureau as well as lack of common sense by the artist.

It also is a sad reflection on any media outlet that would have covered this "artist" before his rights were violated -- his domain name says it all.

If everyone had ignored him, he probably would have gone his way toward ignominy that is every American's God-given right -- the US Gov't took that away from him, and US taxpayers will likely end up paying him a hefty settlement.

Hmmph!

Re:so call me cynical, but...

[Davorama]

If I were an artist and wanted to really boost my exposure I'd design a really tasteless website with a flame fanning subject. Then I'd get a couple of friends (Probably the same guys who acted in the film) to call up my ISP and harass them into killing my site. Then all I'd need is post the story on slashdot and boom! - I'm a geek household name. Not that I think that this is how it actually went but hey, as long as we are being cynical might as well go all the way.

Re:so call me cynical, but...

[deno]

I cannot believe this is true. If it is, then FBI should start firing a lot of people:

The guys who did the stupid move, their chef, the one who gave them employement in the first place, the doctor who is responsible fof checking their health... I wonder how many people would that be in the end...

This is either a classical hoax, or a classical "shoot yourself in the leg" situation. I hope it is a hoax.

Re:so call me cynical, but...

[cyberdonny]

... and free parking. Grmph!

Re:so call me cynical, but...

[JackVance]

Fire the chef? What do cafeteria workers have to do with this?

Sad, but legal

[reptilian]

*IANAL*

Law enforcement has the legal right, AFAIK, to search an apartment that you are renting without a warrant, provided the land lord lets them in. It is the landlord's property, not yours.

This isn't much different, because he's essentially renting the space for his website from the provider. It's their property, and they have the legal right to remove you and your material from it. Law enforcement cannot ORDER them to take it down without due process, but they can request it.

Where it *might* go into being illegal would be the tactics the FBI and US Attourney geneal used on the ISP, but I wouldn't know all the subtelties of that.

Again, IANAL and AFAIK.

Man's unique agony as a species consists in his perpetual conflict between the desire to stand out and the need to blend in.

Re:Sad, but legal

[Frodo]

What about contract relationship between you and your provider? Sure, nobody reads the small print, but was there in small print that they can pull your site for whatever reason they like, or wasn't? If it wasn't, too bad for them. If it was, too bad for their clients.

Re:Sad, but legal

[Pointman]

Depends greatly on the state you reside / rent in.

How many years ago did the NRA call Federal Authorities "Jack-booted thugs" only to catch
hell over it? Seems no one pays attention until
they trample something close to home....

Of course it'd saved us all eye strain if the FBI had bust in at NBC and pulled that FUD Y2K movie they played last Sunday!

Re:Sad, but legal

[Jor]

And in which Opressive Anti-Democratic Human-Rights-Violationg Dictatorship do you live, if i may ask ?

--

Re:Sad, but legal

[Art Tatum]

was there in small print that they can pull your site for whatever reason they like, or wasn't? If it wasn't, too bad for them. If it was, too bad for their clients.

True, but the real question is whether the FBI/U.S. Attorney has the power to intimidate either the client or the ISP.

Oh My God, they killed Google! You Bastards!

[dpdx]

A Google search turns up nothing for "crowdedtheater" (all one word), and nothing related for the phrase separated into its component words.

You do, however, get a page on watchtower.org, the official website of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Lousy spooks! They've gotten to the search engines!
_____

Re:Oh My God, they killed Google! You Bastards!

[RobSweeney]

Google sometimes takes a while to pick things up, so if the site hasn't been around for long, wasn't linked to by much, and/or no one submitted its URL to Google, it's not surprising Google doesn't know about it.

It's actually *not* that unusual...

[Sir_Winston]

We'd all probably be surprised by how often various agencies quench the fires of free speech on the Net--many people would probably have given in without a struggle and given up their sites quietly if paid a visit by the Hoovers. Then, there are probably many cases like this one which we simply never hear about due to media apathy/siding with the J. Edgars. Plus, a tactic which is even subtler: if you can't beat them, buy them out.

This is what very likely recently happened to Decadentcity.com and a related site, grokthis.com/decadent. I can't be 100% on this, but all evidence points to its verity. This isn't meant to be off-topic, it's meant to express something which probably has become a commonplace tactic by law enforcement. See, decadentcity.com and the related site were dedicated to message boards discussing "escorts"--like, the Heidi Fleiss type. It started out local to D.C. back in '96 and soon every major city had a message board and ads and reviews and "ripoff warnings" sections. Maybe a year ago a cryptic message about "new ownership" appeared on the site and then disappeared--and yet everything remained the same. The "new ownership" never revealed itself to the board--not so much as a single message or change to the site. The old owner had always dropped in, but he suddenly disappeared. The site was left untouched. The ads section--principal source of revenue--expired, and for about a year no advertisements were added or deleted even though the women themselves expressed interest on the boards. The boards chattered away, most of the escorts in the D.C. area (and, I'm told, in others) who'd been there for years left the board and several left the business without warning. Rumours circulated about the FBI buying the board as part of an investigation into the "organized crime" involved in escorting and message parlors nationally. Perhaps coincidentally, and perhaps not, the sites have been shut down ever since the very day a week or two ago when the national investigation the FBI had made into the spa/massage/escort business was revealed on the news nationally. I doubt it's coincidence, and I'm furious that either our federal tax dollars went to buy a legal message board (it's legal to *discuss* escorts/"gray market spas", first amendment and all) in order to use it to investigate a local crime like prostitution, or that the owner was possibly coerced into handing a discussion area to the government. What's the FBI doing investigating escorting/spas, anyway? Their excuse given to the media was that they were focusing on "a nationwide network of slavery and indentured servitude in Asian spas"--and yet, in three years on the Decadent City board, I never came across even the mere mention of such a thing. In all likelihood, the operation was mostly about getting a media victory and about using a major national discussion forum about escorts as a clearinghouse to help local law enforcement fight a moral battle about something most people think should be legalized--street prostitution is something most people abhor, but quiet out-of-the-way escorting is seen by 67% (Gallup? poll) of Americans as something which should be legal.

In reality, websites are probably censored or removed by the American government all the time. We need to start to hold the FBI and others accountable, and the mainstream media has to stop seeing the Feds as a purely benevolent force and realize that it's bad when they deep-fry Davidians or shut down a site for having video of a riot or try to accuse some hacker kid of being responsible for hundreds of millions of $$$ in damages for copying but not destroying corporate data purely for fun and challenge.

Re:It's actually *not* that unusual...

[karb]

See, decadentcity.com and the related site were dedicated to message boards discussing
"escorts"--like, the Heidi Fleiss type.

I kind of think this is a bad example. Regardless of what Mike Z's inflammatory video did, it ain't illegal. Regardless of what the FBI did, the escort business is illegal. The FBI should not be in the business of enforcing law only when the law is popular.

Re:It's actually *not* that unusual...

[versimilidude]

the escort business is illegal
Actually the escort business is not illegal. Prostitution (the exchange of value for sexual actions) is illegal in most jurisictions in the U.S. As long as the "escort agency" makes no promises to do more than have someone come visit you it is hard to prove that they were furthering prostitution. The usual result is that the "independant contractor" (the woman working for the service) gets arrested and the business claims they had no idea what was going on, did not control their contractors, etc.
While I would find it easy to believe that most people running these businesses are scummy (no personal knowledge!) it seems a rather broad fishing expedition to buy up a web site to check for suspicions of federal crime. Maybe they were looking for slavery as the orginal post suggested, or maybe money laundering. Still this seems like a waste.
By the way, I just checked - decadentcity.com is available now for any entrepeneur who wants to restart the service.

First Amendment

[cdlu]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I think this states fairly clearly that the FBI stepped waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds. But will they be held accountable? Or will the only Western country not to sign the Geneva Convention ignore human rights, once again?

Re:First Amendment

[Runna^Muck]

Well, the only problem I see is that Congress didn't make a law doing any of those things. The FBI was the one taking action.

Re:First Amendment

[Heatherj]

My sentiments exactly. You know the FBI won't be held responsible. Would they be held responsible if they tried to shut down one of the several major, doomsaying, Hollywood movies that has been in theaters this year? Hell, yes!! They wouldn't even try to do that. But you can violate one person's right to free speech-as long as the person is inconspicuous enough that there won't be an uproar. In some ways, this is the wonderful thing about the web. Anyone can say what they have to say and reach the public with it. This scares the pants off the Powers That Be.

Re:First Amendment

[Rizz0]

When the first ten amendments to the Constitution, collectively known as the Bill Of Rights, were being debated by the founders of this country, there was great controversy. The founding fathers were not debating the merits of the amendments as such, but were worried that the adoption of the amendments would give the impression that the government had the power to grant the citizens of the United States rights, and by extension could thereby revoke those same rights. The Constitutional Convention therefore, in addition to the other amendments making up the Bill of Rights, provided the following two amendments to clarify the issue and to prevent abuses and ursupations of power by the government against the citizens: The Ninth Amendment reads "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." The Tenth Amendment reads "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." However, in spite of these two amendments, which I would posit as being the most important in the Consititution, the Government of the United States of America seems to believe that our rights can be modified or revoked at will without the due process outlined in the Consitution for amendments. The Government and the powers that be would be wise to remember and heed the following statements from the Declaration of Independence: "That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." "But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security." For more information, I suggest the following site: http://www.constitution.org

Re:First Amendment

[reflector]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Well, at least congress can't, according to the constitution. But since when is the FBI held accountable to congress (I mean in reality, not in theory)? Isn't the FBI part of the judicial branch, not the legislative branch? If so, how would this apply to them?

I think this states fairly clearly that the FBI stepped waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds.

The FBI has no bounds. Let's be realistic here. Who can stand up to them? Who can hold them accountable? Any voice that speaks out loudly enough against them will meet with an "unfortunate accident" or be silenced in some other way. Even our representatives are relatively powerless against them. It's very unfortunate, but the most dangerous criminals in our country are the ones working for the government.

Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?!

[CoolHnd30]

" Lucikly back then the average smoe didn't have access to firearms. " uh, how ya figure that ? You got some references for it, b/c it seems to me that most gun control laws have been written in this century, and that 100 years ago, many areas of the country were hardly removed from being 'frontier', so I'm sure that many 'average smoe's' still had their firearms.

mirror

[zondance]

I say we all mirror his site... I have room for it on my servers...

Do they really want to shutdown all of us?

Oh My God, they killed Google! You Bastards!-not h

[koax]

try searching 'crowdedtheater' on hotbot.. the link comes right up.

So f**ing what!

[TDR-X]

It's getting to the point where jursidiction doesn't matter online.

ISP's don't want the hassles of saying no to annoying peoples saying their FBI...

Internet censorship is based on your financial backing.... let's see the reverse happen then maybe that will change.

One thing's for sure I'm not giving up my bandwith just because some fool wants attention...

Oooopsss now if you look at my argument illogically I'm now part of the problem...

TDR
"You have to be bitter to deal with the general public.."

Lawyers? Ignorance?

[Frodo]

With this US habit of everything solved by lawyers, why this man doesn't go and sue his provider? He didn't have any illegal content, and I suppose even didn't violate Terms Of Usage?

BTW, why the man just didn't go and make 1001 mirrors on every free hosting provider in the world, when he heard from FBI and knew it was coming? Or even on one such provider, say, in Russia? I'd see FBI persuading russians to pull out pages from their server... It seems technical ignorance from the both sides is exposed. Hell, I think I could even make site that will mirror itself on Geocities/Xoom/whatever free provider automatically! BTW, now that's an idea for a virus...

Re:?!?

[sdt]

Welcome to Your Rights Online. This is a seperate section from the normal slashdot, and the colours are there to let you know that. Try clicking on the other sections in the little box labelled "Sections" at the left-top of the page and you will see what I mean.

I've Got A Link To A Site With The Video

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.rumormillnews.com The video is up there. Let's all make sites with the video on it. Though I am beginning to wonder if this is just a publicity stunt and the FBI never really did anything.

Re:I've Got A Link To A Site With The Video

[pen]

#include

Hmm... the video is in a RealMedia format.

1. Download RealPlayer and the video.
2. View the video.
3. RealPlayer sends information to Real.
4. The FBI (who did you *think* was really behind RealMedia?) trace your packets.
5. Next thing you know, they're at your door to arrest you.

--

Re:I've Got A Link To A Site With The Video

[Cy Guy]

Here is the story from UPN 9's website:

TIMES SQUARE SCARE
A viewer e-mailed us and asked
us to check out a piece of frightening video that she found on the
web. At first when you look at the tape, it seems like some people
are planning to start a riot in Times Square on New Year's Eve.

Barbara Nevins Taylor reports: (28.8,
56K, or ISDN)

This is a common misconception...

[Sir_Winston]

A tenant has an expectation of privacy in his own rented quarters--which is why, even though it's the landlord's property, the landlord cannot arbitrarily come into your apartment. Imagine you and your girlfriend enjoying a nice, long, wet...game of Pong, when your landlord comes in and watches. Not legal, obviously, in that example--but most people don't realize that it's not legal under most circumstances. However, a landlord *can* let law enforcement into your apartment under circumstances under which it would be legal for Law Enforcement to search without a warrant--when there are risks of imminent danger, or the officers have reason to do a probable cause search, or in other specific cases.

But this has nothing to do with an ISP and the present case. It's a matter of the First Amendment, and the FBI got into the business of censoring that which is perfectly legal--and so the FBI should be punished through civil suit. When they lose enough of their budget they'll stop violating our rights.

with proper notice

[Barbarian]

IANAL, but in most jurisdictions, the landlord must give you 30 days notice (at least) before kicking you out, unless you are doing something like busting up the place.

Now it could be contented that 'Z' was causing damage to the ISP by having this content. Well, was there any contract provision that said, "You may not post controversial content?", or "Your site can be removed without notice?". There could have been.

Regardless, the primary concern here is that the videos may or may not have been doing any damage (I consider any small in this case), and it is hard to justify removing content just because it may be partially controversial.

Is this for real or just another publicity stunt?

[guran]

Somehow I always get suspicious when I read an article about some poor artist who has been treated badly by "them" (insert any three letter authority). Especially when there is *no* attempt to get a comment from "them" and nobody has heard about the artist before the article.
If you read the article (you did that before posting a reply on /. right?) You will find that the only source of informations seems to be "Mike Z" himself.
Now this might be a true story. In that case we simply have a case of overambitious officers and a cowardly ISP.
If Mike Z had just got himself another ISP and maybe sued for damages, then his site would be up and running. But then again, who would know about him then?

Re:Uhhhh, something sounds fishy here.

[Pathwalker]

I would have to agree - the following statement at the end of the article really caught my eye:
"For Z., blurring the line between truth and fiction is what makes his work unique".

I think we might all be becoming part of his work; the video clip (the truth of which the site apparently left in doubt), followed by a story (in a well known media source) of federal agents behaving in a manner that sounds more like what was apparently portrayed in the video than real life, followed by our real reaction to it.

If this was his intent, for the fictional video with a faint suggestion of truth to produce several layers of apparent reality arount itself, I admire his creation :-)


Or, I could be half alseep, and my normal paranoia overrun by fatigue, with an inexplicable flashback to an art history class I attended several years ago.

I'm Dubious...

[ewhac]

If this is true, it is a career-ending move for the agents and officers involved. Period. Which is why I think it's a hoax intended to garner publicity for the artist's work. Your local yokel in B.F.E. might be this stupid; the FBI are not.

If this is a hoax, then I hereby nominate that the artist actually lose his 'net access for 90 days. In my view, we cannot afford to have people crying 'Wolf!' over issues like this, especially when the underlying motive is self-promotion. We need to discourage this kind of thing... If it's a hoax...

Schwab

Re:I'm Dubious...

[Col. Klink (retired)]

So if he tried to scare people about Y2K, you're on his side, but if he's trying to scare people about their rights, you'd like to see him tarred and feathered?

Re:I'm Dubious...

[Manhattan Project]

No, I think it's more if he's using some sort of first-amendment case solely for self-promotion then that is bad. Aside from that, you have the right to scare people about anything. If he wants to scare us about our rights, he doesn't need a y2k video.

I don't think it's a career-ending move for the agents either, if it is true. It's just a dumb move.

Re:I'm Dubious...

[stimuli]

It may not in fact end up a career ending move for the agents in question (assuming that this turns out to be true), and that is too bad. It is exactly these sorts of abuses of power that make me angry, and frankly I have no patience with those goons in the government that would use what threats they have to silence speech, when clearly that have no legal grounds to oppose it.

No doubt, however, that those in power will close ranks around the offenders, and for one simple reason: they are all such offenders.

Re:I'm Dubious...

[cdlu]

If this was a hoax, I'd be more confident that the FBI or the DA's office would have called a press conference and denied the charges, or at the very minimum, made public comment. I (clearly) have No Confidence in the United States governments or its various Gestapolen to govern the United States honestly and fairly.

Re:I'm Dubious...

[Stonehand]

They don't have time to comment on every allegation, no matter how geeky...

So sure?

[Darchmare]

I'm not 100% sure this would be the only reason why the FBI would shut the site down - seems kind of bizzare to me (wouldn't they have stopped NBC's 'Y2K' movie as well?).

I'm thinking there may have been more to it. I'm not saying it's justified, but...

- Jeff A. Campbell
- VelociNews (http://www.velocinews.com)

That's just sad

[Quirk]

As a Canadian I have watched the Big Government and Big Business invasion of privacy in the US spill over into my country. I have gone from irritation to outrage to sadness. What is being done is criminal and it is being done in the face of apathy.

The point being........

[Cplus]

That if it was on Google it would be archived. Then at the very least we could read the text and get some sense of context about the page.

It seemed odd but I did a search for "crowdedtheater" and got no results, but when I searched "crowdedtheater" and "mike" I got results containing just the results "mike". I was under the impression that Google only returned results containing all search terms.
Kind of odd.........probably not some kind of conspiracy.

Re:The point being........

[Le douanier]

I was under the impression that Google only returned results containing all search terms. Kind of odd.........probably not some kind of conspiracy.

Google effectively make an automatic AND between the terms but I suppose that if there is no term responding to the AND query he make an OR, so you end up with some responses even if you don't have a page having all these words together.

The hands are in view...

[CPol]

... but the feet deal under the table, as an old Russian saying goes. The trick here is that no Government wishes to have Internet listed as a freedom of speech issue.

In Sweden there is a constitutional legislation about protecting the freedom to publish and distribute your views. And yet a recent (quite controversial) jugement decided that the internet is not a valid print media, and as such not protected by the free speech act.

This is happening all around the globe. And why? Because it's very easy to publish something on the net. No special resources are needed, you don't even need a computer as you can walk down to your local library and borrow one. All you need is a little bit of knowledge and something to say. And that's dangerous to any government.

I could just as easily be describing how to destroy the US (or any other) government, telling people that one race or religion is superior to another or that abortion is murder and should be punished by death. All of these are statements that are easy to find on the web. All of these are available in print, if you know where to look. So why would anyone care if these (or any other) opinion are also available on the net?

First of, the net is accessible to anyone and there is no (practical) way to check on who accesses what. Therefore there is no way to catalogue 'dangerous elements', however security agencies choose to define the term. It's very easy to check who's going to a meeting or ordering a book, it's much harder to check who's looking at a webpage and even harder to check who's there because of conviction and who just surfed on in.

Secondly, news on the net spread like fire on the steppe. Just think about the case of Mahir, the turkish man who's (stolen) page became the focus of millions of viewers overnight (why? don't ask me, I find it all rather strange). The same could be possible of the White America Movements webpage, or any other extremist groups. And that would lead to media panic. Just think of the headlines 'Nazi party attracts millions of followers', 'Fourth Reich founded in Illonois'. Heck the possibities for bad titles, bad reporting and free exposure for any obscure extremists are humongous.

Third, the Internet is not (yet) protected by any cohesive freedom of media act. Therefore anything published on the net does not benefit from the same rights as a 'normal' publication. For example, in Sweden it's illegal to force vendors to stop selling a certain book, but it's quite legal to force an ISP to stop hosting a certain page. I immagine it's the same in most of the western world.

So there you have four points (yeah, I did number only three, mea culpa) about why censoring the web is so attractive. It's easy to publish on it, it's hard to check the spread of publications, it's easy to spread the widely, which makes undesirable (from an government policy standpoint) websites classed as 'dangerous' and it's easy to do something about it, which makes govenment agencies more likely to intervene. And I'd like to point out that they did not pull Mike Z.s' page until it started to attract attention (security trough obscurity and all that *grin*). Until Mike Z. became famous (however little fame he got) he was just another coock (sic?) ranting away on the net.

For the wrap up then; first to repeat Garins comment:
Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies.
Very true, just as you can't depend on finding a printing house that is willing to publish your essay on why 'Mein Kampf' is the greatest literary work of all times, you can't expect that ISPs will be throwing themselves at your feet to host your 'International Terrorism for Dummies' website. And if an ISP does host it, don't expect them to fight for it. That's your job. If you feel that your views are worth fighting for, you're the one that has to do all the fighting.

Secondly, assuming that you share my brand of political pessimism, governments will do pretty much anything to force their version of 'goodness' on the world. But anyone with a conviction will do that, even if it's a politico whos conviction is that pushing a certain matter will gain him more votes.
If still in doubt, see how the German government managed to ban 'Mein Kampf' in the western world (I'll give you a hint: they claimed that they had the copyright to it and then refused to allow anyone to publish or distribute it, they even managed to get it banned from libraries, except for research reasons) or how the Swedish government managed to claim that the Swedish people wanted to ban nuclear power (by calling a referendum where the choices to vote on were 'ban now', 'ban by year 2000' and 'ban by year 2015'. The 2015 won with a large majority).

So, without further ado, have a nice and very optimistic life .) (And please read everything criticaly, especialy this article.)

Re:The hands are in view...

[CPol]

Not so in Sweden... There was a big case about a year back of 'Radio Islam' a muslim extremist radio station and web site (and publishing house). I never listened to it myself but apparently their principial owner went on the air and online with anti-Semitic progaganda. The station and site got shut down for violation of the 'harrasment of group' act but not the publishing house. (Hets mot folkgrupp, meaning about harrasment or incitement against a particular group of people. It's supposed to protect any group of people from prossecution by any other group but only the nazi crackdowns (and related) have gotten any media coverage, althought it's probable that the law has been used in other cases as well.)

Also, what is the Communications Decency Act? And does it have anything to do with why US TV shows 'beep' out any f**k's?

Re:The hands are in view...

[mice'n'cheese]

The CDA (Communications Decency Act) was a failed attempt by the US Government to regulate 'controversial' (aka pr0n) speech on the Internet, the CDA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court (But the Gov is at it again!). The Beeping out of bad words on tv probably has more to do with industry regulation than with the government.

You're absolutely right...

[Andrew Cady]

Assuming the government did not threaten any sort of actual force, this is "only" a violation of the ethics of free speech, not the legality. The ISP in question has the right of free speech - they have the right not to publish information they don't want published. They have an ethical responsibility to continue publishing what they have been payed to publish, but not a legal one. (If they do have a legal one, it is contractual, not constitutional).

Still, ethical violations of free speech are always odious, whether by government or by business. Either way, it's an abuse of power that no person should have.

The solution to this, in case you were wondering, is the FREENET. The goal of freenet is to allow content distribution and access to be inexpensive and (optionally) anonymous. (Sorta like USEnet, but without requiring 6gb/day to serve. Freenet seeks to eliminate the slashdot effect as a barrier to free speech.) Essentially, censorship is made technologically impossible on the freenet, short of stopping people before they ever post.

Hopefully, all of the public information on the internet will be on something similar to freenet eventually. If it is, we won't ever see a story like this again.

Mirror space

[ChrisKnight]

I tried to write the owner of the domain to offer free mirror space, but it seems that his ISP has cut off email as well as web services.

-ck

Nothing new here, move along...

[snowbird]

Standard operating procedure by the blokes in the black hats.

Does it ever occure to those of the liberal persuasion, that our Founding Fathers and others came to the realization that the only thing that keeps a government honest is a population that *is* the milita?

Does any one really believe that they can "do social engineering" to remove all of the "power nuts" out of our entire society, ESPECIALLY in the government?

Fat chance!

But we get what we deserve. Just look at our country's voting record and the canadates we elect. Freedom has a price, and it has to be paid personally and individually by each and every citizen. Trying to lay the responsibility on (or pay) anyone else to do the "dirty work" that we don't wish to carry, only leads to opportunities for others of a more malvolent disposition to take advantage of us. You can't have it both ways.

Nuff said.

"You can't have something for nothing, You can't have freedom for free..." -- RUSH 2112

Spooks just don't appreciate irony, do they?

[Skwirl]

It seems to me that anybody who took US History in high school should understand the irony of the domain name "crowdedtheater.com" being censored.
Even if this site was a "clear and present danger," which I doubt, the Feds needed to go through more official circles than just harassing the ISP.
Been a while since I took J110, but here are the court cases that I believe established the "fire in a crowded theater" precident: Debs Vs. United States and Schenck Vs. United States. The government won both of these cases, but that was during WWI and it's a heck of a lot harder to prove clear and present danger during peacetime. There's no doubt that this was a blatant violation of the First Amendment.

Re:Why Troll?

[pen]

I think that it was pretty obvious that the person did a quick one-sentence post just to get in first. Same goes for the real first post on this topic (as evidenced by post #4 by that same person)

I think that these "fake" first posts don't add to the discussion at all, and are just a way of doing a "first post" while having an arument against bad moderation. "But kind sir, I didn't actually use the words 'first post' in my post! The fact that my post was actually first is actually a coincidence!" Personally, I would've marked the post down as "Redundant", though.

Since I'm already making this post, I'll point out another thing that *really* annoys me. All the kids that use the term Big Brother without reading 1984! (Or even knowing that the term comes from that book, for that matter.)

Does anyone agree, or am I just turning into an old fart before even becoming an adult?

--

Let a thousand mirrors bloom ....

[taniwha]

The "the net treats censorship as a fault and routes around it" axiom applies here in spades - this is a 1st amendment issue - we need to mirror this in so many different places on-shore and off shore that the FBI or anyone can't shut it down.

Each time they shut down 1 bend, don't break, let them do it, but raise a stink on the net 5 more will spring in their place

PS: trolling the public is an honorable profession - Orson Wells would be proud :-)

Re:Yah, no shit...

[pen]

Different sections on Slashdot have different colors. See the "Sections" box on the left? Click some of the links in it, and you'll see what I'm talking about.

Of course, an option to disable this stuff would be nice... but it isn't here yet, and you don't seem to have an account anyway, so...

--

iso8601 getting used at last

[rjforster]

I'm glad to see the correct date format used in the /. story header for this one.

Whee... conspiracy theories.

[Skwirl]

Ugh, are we sure this is the original video? I just don't trust conspiracy theory sites.

ISPs need a back bone.

[Catatonic Dismay]

How many of you are tired of ISPs just shutting people down because they've gotten threatened by someone else ( whether it be with a lawsuit or whatever just hollow threats ). I think there needs to be something done about this, like something that says that internet providers can not be liable for their customer's content. Ok.. so are landlords responsible for everything that goes on in a apartment ? No... and neither are ISPs. Sure, a landlord has to report any injustices seen, just as any other person, just like an ISP. An ISP can not possibly monitor clients content. All this shouldn't even come into consideration though.. the ISP should just say 'No sorry, not untill we're ordered by a court to do so.' If an ISP did this, I would be impressed and I would use their services over others. AOL sickens me with their giving away client's information at the bat of an eye. Getting back to the liability thing with ISPs.. I thought I remember hearing a trial about that where they were figuring out whether or not a ISP is liable for the content it's clients upload. What was the outcome ? I'll do a quick search for it, I know it was on /.

later

Re:ISPs need a back bone.

[Catatonic Dismay]

Ah yeah. Heres some related articles:

This one ponders why ISPs have no back bone


This one asks whether or not ISPs are liable for content


Heres a British ruling on the previous ( which I can't say I agree to )

Re:jeeez... can you say HOAX!?!?

[Runna^Muck]

Hey he apologized for that, give 'em a break.

Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?!

[dominion]

Why do terrorists/anarchists/whateverists have a higher profile?

As a quick note, please do not confuse terrorists and anarchists.

The former create heirarchy through violence against people, the latter seek to liberate people from all incarnations of the former.

To put it another way: Terrorists == cracker, Anarchists == hacker.

Michael Chisari

Unionism (OT)

[Malcontent]

I would say that most unions are probably OK but even if you are right then what? Are you suggesting that each individual fight a corporation by himself? Yea me against Times/Warner I got a chance huh? A corporation (especially if it owns media) is all powerful. You need the might of thousands if not millions to fight it and even then you will be likely to get killed or thrown in jail.

Re:Unionism (OT)

[Stonehand]

Erm, sure. It's been done -- Nader versus, well, just about all the Big Three, and he's still around, right? Ask random people what they think about when they hear "Ford Pinto".

Rachel Carson definitely made an *impact* with "Silent Spring"...

Philip Agee worked with the KGB in publicly, repeatedly betraying his former employers -- the CIA -- and believe it or not, no hit teams were sent after him; the KGB has had its share of defectors (who sometimes *did* have to avoid kidnapping/assassination) as well.

A pair of reporters, Woodward and Bernstein, broke the Watergate story and explored the malfeasance of the Nixonian CRP.

If you rant and rave, you'll probably be largely ignored corner like "Redmond Rose"; if you start by documenting actual _hard evidence_ and articulate a cogent argument, perhaps starting with Letters to the Editor and such, then you will be heard. It's easy to ignore the bizarre (those that still espouse the _Protocols of the Elders of Zion_, say), and the shrill (those that rely on entirely emotional arguments), but it's tough for most large targets to dodge facts.

That's why groups like the Sierra Club have better reputations than "Earth First!" -- discussion being considered better than sabotage -- and folks like Sam Nunn and Phil Gramm are more respected than Lyndon LaRouche or Vladimir Zhironovsky.

common carrier

[Mawbid]

Unfortunately what you say is true. What I'm wondering is whether the same ISP will later turn around and use the common carrier argument when somebody sues them over their users' content.

I'm also wondering if there's an ISP out there that can guarantee me they won't respond to such suggestions from authorities. And where can I buy software instead of licensing it under terms that include "EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, INCLUDING THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE"?

I'd love to wake up smiling--full of the joys of spring
And hear on CNN that Elvis lives again
And that John's back with the Beatles and they're goin' out on tour
I'll be the first in line for tickets--gotta see that show for sure

(The blockquoted part is not my IP, it's from a Shania Twain song)
--

searchengines

[itsme]

only 1 search engine returns a direct hit on the crowdedtheater page : goto.com

"CROWDEDTHEATER.COM Is there going to be a Military Takeover of New York City on New Years Eve 1999? I don't know too much about this tape you are about to see. I got it from my cousin Steve who's in the army. He said that copies of this tape are.."

altavista returns 3 hits on a pages which have probably changed since altavista indexed them. (morrock.com, sbcfl.com, and www.itva-maryland.org) (or have some deal with altavista to generate a hit regardless of a textual hit.)

the unability of crowdedtheater.com to leave any traces in cyberspace makes it more likely to be a hoax in my opinion.

willem

Re:searchengines

[itsme]

dejanews had a thread on this october the 29th, an anonymous poster refering to crowdedtheater.com on alt.survivalism in a posting named "Y2K Military takeover?"

willem

Summary as of 2:30 AM Wednesday.

[GossG]

Google: knows nothing.
AltaVista: Three hits. TWO of them are mow mispointing to a Hillary Clinton story, the other mispointing to a non-relevant page.
Yahoo still has a link to the original site, which of course says "Forbidden .. no permission".
Ask Jeeves seems to choke on it, showing the three dead Altavista links and misformatting the rest of the page.
Dogpile.com found a reference to the original page on goto.com, and nothing else

So, Alt.conspiracy has a new topic of conversation, a budding artist gets his name spattered onto the big time. Nothing like a government stomp to get people watching.

But this NEEDS watching. A government that feels the need to stomp needs to be watched carefully. I thank those who brought this to our attention.

If websites, why not movies?

[leonbrooks]

Does this seem _strange_ to you? Why bin a small website but leave a large Y2K-panic movie alone?

Something smells odd...

Re:If websites, why not movies?

[Theocracy]

They have done movies before. In 1963, the movie "The Manturian Candidate" was pulled from theatres shortly after the JFK asassination. Reason? It made proud, proud America look weak compared to the Soviets.

-Theocracy

Similar conspiracy happened in England

[evilj]

A very similar case has happened in England, where the Lord Chancellor's department shut down a web site, which has now been mirrored all over the place.

The basic drift is that this chap has been allegedly conspired against by the Judiciary, who initially falsified evidence with aid of a shorthand writer, and then conspired to pervert the course of justice and perpetrated unlawful actions.

With all this overt abuse of power, I'm not surprised the conspiracy theorists get so worked up. I mean... if *they* openly work outside the law, how much worse must their covert actions be?

Food for thought...

Mirror:

[Wakko Warner]

Much as I think this is a terrible hoax (what better way to get publicity than to claim Big Bad Government is bothering you?), I have the thing mirrored here. Have fun...

- A.P.
--

"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad

Re:Mirror:

[Lando]

Nod,
Thanks for the link. Notes:

1) Very well done video, this guy if working alone did a good job.

2) Seems more like a Hate Crime propoganda piece to actually stir up trouble.

3) The clip is Blair witch like, at least as I understand the movie was haven't seen it myself. No real hard talk about why and how things will be done, but a lot of inuendo.

4) I've concluded that the article is likely to be fabricated, ie it is my opinion, at this time ie always subject to change, that the thing is a hoax. Still waiting on confirmation from the artist to post the information as a mirror.

Lando

Re:Mirror:

[Anonymous Coward]

Seems more like a Hate Crime propoganda piece to actually stir up trouble.

It sounds like something from the FBI Megiddo file? Alas, I couldn't view it due to slashdot effect. Basically the FBI thinks the nuts are going to be out in full force come Y2K, because the white supremacists think the government is going to be weak enough that Y2k is the ideal time to provoke a race war, whatever that is. Following me? And then, according to the mythology, the world ends and Jesus comes to save the white people.

I am scared. Look at what these nuts did in Oklahoma. This act was supposed to start a race war, folks.

Our "FREEDOM" is _gone_.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is truely pathetic. The entire FBI should be disassembled over this. They destroyed what they were hired to protect. They aren't doing their job. Time to get a new president, and a new FBI.

Re:Our "FREEDOM" is _gone_.

[CyberMandrake]

Perhaps to change the president isn't enough. The society's paradigms on democracy may have to be changed, to avoid the same economical groups to control the US and world president after president. Looking deep inside the "democracy" we may see a central power pretending to act democratically. Acts like this only enforce the belief of an anti-democratic democracy. Lets open our eyes!

Lucky still.....

[Jamieson3UK]

Here in the UK we don't have free speech.... A man has just been taken to court for swearing in a newsrgroup and for dialling a telephone number..... The good old pathetic UK....

Yes it sure smells like a hoax

[guran]

If someone wants me to believe that the FBI actually spent any effort to keep this crap offline, they sure will need to work hard.
How about some facts?
Do we have *any* source of information about this thing except for "Mike Z"s own words?

Another Y2K Site Censored!!!

[Old Fart!]

... By the webmaster himself! ;)

http://206.54.108.130/19991121.asp

"Due primarily to the fact that our federal government and mainstream press have now succeeded in setting up the American public for a costly, last-minute Y2K panic, I have decided to cease the publication of public articles on Y2K until January 1. I have reached this decision following two weeks of nearly torturous consideration on the subject."

Mind you, I expect conspiracy theory fans will have a field day anyway! "Oh, he must have been pushed by the FBI etc., etc."

===
Old Fart!!! Of tha SENIOR DADS!!!!!

Help! Help!

[Black_Macrame]

Please Mr. FBI!
Save us! Save us from ourselves!
We're so scared and helpless!

Eeek!

This is just scary...

[MarNuke]

Thougts like this LET the goverment walk over people. It's saying "oh the goverment can do what ever they want and there is nothing anyways can do about it. The goverment is allways right". Thinking like this is what prevent us from having "HOLY SHIT, WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!" on the front page of the news paper today.

The internet is the last medium that isn't controled and where I can say what I want and only pay a small fee to say it. Now it's about gone and the only thing you can say is oh well??

End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all.

What the hell!! Only the guy that got screwed!!! Next it's going to be your site or your paper, your relgion, your idea. What if I didn't like anything you said and I had the power to "ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this" and was able to stop all post, all emails, and control everything that went to your computer??? You didn't sign an agreement with your ISP that forced them to allow you "free" access. Oh yeah, that wouldn't be stomping on your rights. To make a note unless you ARE the Internet (which is controled by any single company) now one have to route the crap coming from your system.

Me (taking the role of the goverment) can "kindly ask" to block everything coming in and out of your network and have a legal right to do so, if we went along with your "idea".

Did I just see liberty getting raped again?!?!


The people you oppress will come back to distroy you.

Hello -- ACLU???

[tilleyrw]

I smell the beginnings of a lawsuit...

Yep, barbecue those lawyers long enough and they turn out right crispy!

Mmm... Incapacitating!

[Pope]

I assume you're talking about the Vancouver Police pepper spraying the kids at the APEC conference, right?
Have you seen the videotape? The cops went totally apeshit. The most revealing footage is when one of the cops (the freakin' Chief Of Police, no less) is just going around spraying, looks directly at one of the people with a camcorder, and just sprays the fuck out of him, hitting the camera square in the lens.
The cop had absolutely no expression in his face, just a grim line.
Pepper Spray is nasty ass shit and is supposed to be used for life-threatening emergencies, not to smack down a bunch of university students protesting peacefully.
Hell, I've seen video footage of the California State Police apply it directly to the eyelids of protestors with big cotton swabs to try to get people to move. It turns my stomach.

Pope

The Tyranny of Safety

[Brian Knotts]

Jackbooted government thugs will do anything now in the name of "safety," and the average person will support such actions, because the average person is a coward.

Our firearms are gradually being taken from us, leaving only government with any real power. Now, our speech is being taken from us, gradually, just like the guns, and we won't be able to do anything about it, even if we wanted to.

Everything now is done in the name of "safety." Liberty means nothing to the average Joe. We now live in an oppressive quasi-matriarchy, where freedom means "the freedom to not do unsafe things."

I'm sure a lot of people will object to what I say, but I don't care. That's how I feel about it. I think we need to get back to trying to preserve our Liberty, instead of trying to deny our humanity.


Interested in XFMail? New XFMail home page.

And I was posting about this only yesterday...

[Paul Crowley]

... on the Microsoft Monopoly board game, an article entitled "No, the ISP gets the lawsuit - they give in faster".
--

The Rape of the American Constituion

[UnknownSoldier]

Our rights and freedoms are constantly being eroded as many people have pointed out.

Here is an interesting quote by Alexander Hamilton:

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerious. They would contain exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more then were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power."

This is the crux of the issue. Whatever rights we DON'T grant to the government, WE retain. But you certainly wouldn't know that from the way the government acts.

If you're curious WHY the first 10 amendments to the Bill of Rights were drawn up, you might be interested in reading:

The Rape of the American Constitution

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/155950127 8/qid=943449088/sr=1-1/002-3380448-1130666

IANAL

Cheers

Re:The Rape of the American Constituion

[Mr. Slippery]

This is the crux of the issue. Whatever rights we DON'T grant to the government, WE retain. But you certainly wouldn't know that from the way the government acts.

Agreed, and this is clearly spelled out in Amendments IX and X. But I suspect things would be much worse without the enumerated rights.

Re:The Rape of the American Constituion

[symbolic]

Yo its credit, groups like the ACLU do keep an eye on abuses like this. If there's a legitimate case here, I'd venture to say that they'll become involved. Fortunately, the fed is still subject to the judicial process, just like all the rest of us.

Wrong

[Stormfire]

Probably not as prevelant with the fbi...but the cops often do ask you can they search through your possessions/belongings. You have the right to say NO, which then forces/requires them to go get a warrant or whatever. There is a difference in a cop knocking on your door and saying, "do you mind if we take a look around inside?" (which is legal) ... and forcing his way in and searching against your wishes (that requires a warrant)

Re:Wrong

[GargoyleMT]

I'm not sure if you're hopping on this guy for the right reasons.

I think his point was if the police asked a 3rd party to search your stuff versus if the 3rd party did it on their own without any prompting from the [government].

Not that I know anything about the legality, but you seemed to be confusing the issue.

educating ISPs

[gotan]

One problem here is, that again it's an ISP which, confronted with implicit threats (i consider a letter by a three letter agency as such) went the easy way and complied. This is perfectly understandable, from their point of view, they have nothing to gain from protecting their customer but very much to loose if targeted with a lawsuit.

This means, that any ISP getting a nice letter from something official enough (lawyer/government agency) will prefer to loose a customer to standing up for them. This will only change if the threat of a lawsuit is oubalanced, for example by the threat of loosing more customers than one. This could be achieved by threatening with consumer boycotts. While switching whole websites from one ISP to another might be too costly, switching ISP providers for private netaccess (i.e. predial another number/switch contracts) is a possibility here.

Also an online list where information concerning ISPs is gathered (prices / netaccess / helpdesk), maybe with a list of links to cases how an ISP reacted on behalf of their customers interests, would be a good starting point, but in general an exemplary case (i.e. getting enough public attention to the mending of the right of free speech and getting consumers boycott an ISP) would really make the ISP's more aware, that their customers are more than a bunch of bankaccounts.

That consumer boycotts really work can be seen from the example of brent spar.

A good starting point for this

Re:WHERE IS ACLU WHEN WE NEED THEM ?!

[Kintanon]

considering what chaos goes on during any other ney year's, i think i have to side with the FBI on this one. The last time we had a turn of the century, people thought the world was commming to an end. Lucikly back then the average smoe didn't have access to firearms.

What the HELL are you talking about? At the turn of the last century (1900 over to 1901) fire arms where in abundant supply all over the country, shooting was a gentlemans sport, and almost every man in the country owned a rifle. Of course, at the turn of the last MILLENIUM there weren't quite so many firearms ya know....

Kintanon

Try Allodial Title

[UnknownSoldier]

> It is the landlord's property, not yours.

Unless the landlord has Allodial Title, it is actually the government's.

Check Black's Law Dictionary if you want more info.

IANAL

Cheers

Re:Freedom is a mirage today.

[stuntpope]

Booooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Big thumbs down

It makes sense

[elgardo]

Amen!

Though seeing the responses, may I add my 2c... after seeing the video in question...

1. The video reeks "home made" - a lot of home/movie-like phrases. Had this video been made, I am certain that there would be phrases that are NOT known by the public. (Not to mention that this is FAR from organized enough to be proper briefing)
2. I can see that, given the obvious fakeness of the material, the video can have three obvious side-effects:
   1. Generate yet another Y2K scare (probably the intention)
   2. Push the paranoid over the limit, inviting MORE trigger happy guns into the NYC new year celebration, ready to start shooting at anything suspicious.
   3. Inspire people who understand that the video is a hoax, to actually go do it! (Keep in mind the "inspiration factor" after Columbine)
   Thus, I can see why, for the public saftey, the FBI would ask the artist to shut it down. Sometimes, nay, OFTEN, art like this fits the bill, but IMHO, this is NOT one of those occasions and the video is likely to cause more damage than anything else.
3. Given the obvious fakeness of the video, I would also not be surprised if the so called FBI intervension is also a hoax. After all, THE way to get exposure on the Internet is to cry "First Amendment!" Well, that, or appealing to Art Bell's audience with the keyword government oppression. These guys cry "censorship" every time Art has technical problems. So much that even Art gets irritated about it!
4. The contents of the video is a conspiracy to a crime.

Do I believe that the FBI actually shut the site down? No.
Do I believe that the FBI should have shut the site down for public saftey? Yes. It really comes down to understanding the reactions from your audience, and, uh, there are enough weirdo's out there who would react with gunfire on this one. Sorry.

The NBC movie? Piece of cake compared to this. The NBC movie had the message "Things might not work, and people will panic". This home video had the message "You have reason to panic, because we're out to get you". Big difference.

Speaking of understanding the reactions from your audience... I understand that I will now be flamed by "first amendment at all cost" advocates. Which is ok. They have their right of opinion. They have the right to express that opinion. However, they do not have the right to make a video, say that it came from me, detailing how I would crush free speech. Because at this point, it is no longer just freedom of expression, it is also impersonation. (Mmmm... another thing to add to the list above)

Re:Freedom is a mirage today.

[Rellon]

Everybody can just skip the link aboe. It is just a website sprouting racist hate against Jews.

Back to the topic. I looked at some of that video clip. All I saw was just a video taken of Times Square with a voice over. It seemed totally innoculous to me. Nothing like the power grid failing or a nuclear plant failing. It seems to me that the FBI knows they couldn't do anything about NBC showing that movie. However, it's very easy to strong arm regular citizens.

Mirror here

[yack0]

http://www.mint.net/~yacko/timesq.ram

Over the Border

[Midnight Thunder]

It is at times like this when people should take advantage of the international coverage of the internet. One way of making sure that the FBI don't close down your website is by moving the website overseas. Sure, the CIA would probably try something but has to be really important to start discussing these sort of issues with a foreign government.

Hmm, anyone up for starting a website on the moon ;-) You would have to take the UN to do anything about it up there.

Whois Records seem legit...

[devost]

Domain is registered to a Mike in NJ and DNS data is correct for the ISP. Doubt that this is a hoax as many have claimed.

http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/wh ois/?STRING=crowdedtheatre.com

Click here to see the video.

[AftanGustur]

Click here to see the Video
--
Why pay for drugs when you can get Linux for free ?

another MIRROR here.

[gimpboy]

it took me a bit to get it so here is another mirror:

http://bell-2216.cheg.uark.edu/ ~jmh3/stuff/timesq.ram

john


john

News report of pepper spray

[greenrd]

Here we have a report:

"Tension high after pepper spray used on protesters" (CNN, 31 Oct 97)

Includes disturbing video footage of the police actually rubbing pepper spray into protestors eyes. Ouch.

The Nazi bastards should have been tried and locked up for torture.

Re:News report of pepper spray

[Mr. Slippery]

Includes disturbing video footage of the police actually rubbing pepper spray into protestors eyes. Ouch.

The Nazi bastards should have been tried and locked up for torture.

I remember seeing this on tape. You're nicer than I am - I think the pigs in question should have been shot right there on the spot. (And, if the rat bastard survives, then tried and imprisoned for life, no parole.)

That is not an exageration. If I saw one person torturing another, and I was armed, the torturer would cease immediately or would be shot. I think most of us would agree that this would be a justified use of force to defend another; the fact that the torturer was wearing a badge should not affect this.

Re:News report of pepper spray

[donarb]

The protesters in California were terrorists, they got what they deserved. They busted into a private business, assaulted a secretary and destroyed private property. They were told if they don't leave, they would be pepper sprayed. I don't know about you, but if someone told me they were going to inflict pain upon my person, I would move immediately.

Then, these people showed up two weeks later in order to be pepper sprayed again, because they didn't have the first one on tape. These people are masochists, not martyrs.

Protesting is a right that all citizens enjoy, but terrorizing others is not a right.

I'd love to have your address, because I'm sure you're doing something that I want to protest about. Now I know I can come into your house, bust everything up, and you'll defend me from the police. Thanks.

Re:News report of pepper spray

[spyderbyte23]

Bollocks.

You little weasel. How were they "bust[ing] everything up" while they were chained together?

I watched that video. I've caught the occasional whiff of pepper spray -- never directed at me, but at people several blocks away -- and that's painful enough.

God help those cops if I'd been there while they tortured a 16-year-old girl, rubbing pepper spray on her eyes while she screamed in pain.

Re:News report of pepper spray

[Mr. Slippery]

Either we're talking about different events, or you're full of bullshit. The protesters were chained together and were not - indeed, could not be - acting in an agressive manner. The use of pepper spray to stop a beligerant may be justified on some occsions, but the direct application of chemicals to the eyes, via a cotton swab, indicates by its very possibility that the victim is in no position to be aggressive.

I'd love to have your address, because I'm sure you're doing something that I want to protest about. Now I know I can come into your house, bust everything up, and you'll defend me from the police. Thanks.

I'm in the book, and my resume (with address) can be found at my web site. If you dig around there enough, there's even a map with directions.

If you were to break into my house, you would be met with force, but only with appropriate force. If you are a threat to me, my housemate, or my dogs, I may use lethal force. If you are damaging my property, I will use sufficient force to stop you - but no more. If you are chained to my front door, I may have to hold you down while they cut your chains (or I might just leave you there and use the back door until hunger weakens you enough to deal with), but there's no way I would be justified in using chemical torture, or beating you, or electric shock, or anything similar. Yes, I will use reasonable force to defend myself or others; but I will not torture, nor will I sanction the use of torture, but will oppose it by any means necessary.

Re:Freedom is a mirage today.

[Axess Denyd]

Well you don't still have a copy of it you can mass-distribute do you? :-)

Re:When does it stop? - by compuser

[bungalow]

someone moderate this up!
_______________________________

Hey, it's a fight like any other.

[pbk105]

Like the bullies in grade schools, a person has to decide if it's worth fighting for or not. It's totally an individual perspective issue. This is the same government that has always been. They've just gotten a lot more slippery. They've learned that most people can't afford to fight because of money or time. If we REALLY think this is such a travesty to freedom, we should put our money where our mouth is and fight. Otherwise let's save the impotent kaffe klatch b.s. about how bad the world is. Instead of this /. effect maybe we should have a /$ effect. Anytime we hear about shit like this going on, we each send $50 to the ACLU or some other group that fights the man. Even if our side doesn't win, we get the satisfaction of irritating the powers with lawsuits. Hell, that's how they keep us in line. Let's turn the tables.

Paul

Deosyne

[hornerj]

You have given a prime example of the need for education on the relationship between rights and responsibilities.

As a semi-fascist, I truly believe that everyone should ask how their actions could affect the country and their countrymen. You seem to be only interested in what your rights are, and how you can interpret your rights to interfere with the rights of others. This person wanted to cause a scare. He wanted to walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". I have no doubt of that.

The FBI probably asked the site to take a gander at the site and determine whether or not this broke the agreement the site maintainer signed. I would be surprised if it didn't.

Now, having given 6 years of my life to defending the rights you enjoy, I think you need to consider what affect this person's perceived rights might have on others. If I ran around saying that everything you posted contained an HTML exploit, I would look as silly as this "artist" did. You would also be inconvenienced.

"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - JFK

We all need to live by those words. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.

Re:Deosyne

[Kintanon]

You have given a prime example of the need for education on the relationship between rights and responsibilities.

As a semi-fascist, I truly believe that everyone should ask how their actions could affect the country and their countrymen. You seem to be only interested in what your rights are, and how you can interpret your rights to interfere with the rights of others. This person wanted to cause a scare. He wanted to walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". I have no doubt of that.

The FBI probably asked the site to take a gander at the site and determine whether or not this broke the agreement the site maintainer signed. I would be surprised if it didn't.

Now, having given 6 years of my life to defending the rights you enjoy, I think you need to consider what affect this person's perceived rights might have on others. If I ran around saying that everything you posted contained an HTML exploit, I would look as silly as this "artist" did. You would also be inconvenienced.

"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - JFK

We all need to live by those words. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.


Ah, excellent, then since there are more of us than there are of you, and we find you to be taking up resources that would be better spent in purchasing us large screen TVs and T1 lines, you won't mind turning over all of your posessions to us for the benefit of the many, eh?
I suggest you rethink your beliefs in the sanctity of the majority as there are FAR more idiots in the world than intelligent folks. Maybe sometime the whim of the majority and 'what's best for society' isn't always what's RIGHT? After all, it would be GREAT for society if we took the 10 richest people on earth and divided their assets among the rest of the population....

Kintanon

Re:Deosyne

[huddles]

The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.

Who's being the romantic here? That phrase expresses self-sacrifice, a cornerstone of romanticism.

Our country was founded on the concept of preserving freedom by protecting the needs of the few, not the many.

BTW, the "many" is primarily made up of close-minded, left-or-right-wing extremists who don't care about you or your needs, and would rather see you burn in Hell (or just die, depending on their religious beliefs), than give an inch. Personally, I rather enjoy what's left of my protection from those people.

Joe

Re:Deosyne

[chialea]

it's not THINK what your country can do for you. it's ASK. Ted Kazinsky THOUGHT he could blow people up for the good of society. I'm sure that if he ASKED, people would have told him otherwise.

As well, the rights of the few do sometimes in fact outweigh the needs of the many. I have the right to say quite a few things that wou and other people would rather not hear. you could indeed claim, if it were upsetting enough, that you need not to hear it. however, that cannot override my right to say it (pendant of course on a few conditions that have more to do with your nose than my fist), at least in the US of A.

it is a tricky thing to determine the "needs of the many". who do you trust to do it? the president? the dictator? are they more the "many" than you or I? on the other hand, it is also hard to determine what rights an individual should have -- but it is far safer, in my opinion.

Lea

Re:Deosyne

[Deosyne]

As a semi-fascist, I truly believe that everyone should ask how their actions could affect the country and their countrymen. You seem to be only interested in what your rights are, and how you can interpret your rights to interfere with the rights of others. This person wanted to cause a scare. He wanted to walk into a crowded theater and yell "Fire". I have no doubt of that.

Again, I cite The Blair Witch Project and that NBC Y2K travesty of a production; are these also examples of yelling fire in a crowded theater? Was he wrong because he made a demonstration of the abuse of power that could ensue if a government agency decided to break the rules to promote their own agenda (which, ironically, is exactly what happened, only as a quiet censoring rather than a race riot)? No matter his intentions, his actions did not directly threaten anyone's life, unlike your poor example of shouting fire in a crowded theater. At worst, it would cause people to become suspicious of the motivations of those who wield the most power in this country, which is not a bad thing.

The FBI probably asked the site to take a gander at the site and determine whether or not this broke the agreement the site maintainer signed. I would be surprised if it didn't.

I'm afraid I don't understand; how would this mockumentary violate the terms of an ISP hosting agreement? Again, it is not the place of a law enforcement agency to interpret the law, merely to enforce existing laws. That is the job of the courts.

Now, having given 6 years of my life to defending the rights you enjoy, I think you need to consider what affect this person's perceived rights might have on others. If I ran around saying that everything you posted contained an HTML exploit, I would look as silly as this "artist" did. You would also be inconvenienced.

Save the "I protected your hide" crap; I did my four and took my honorable discharge and 20% disability for "God and Country". And now I'm finding out that the country that I served is actively suppressing members of the population for what? The crime of provoking thought? The crime of getting people to question the world around them rather than blindly believing what they're told by the State? The crime of entertaining? And I'm not sure what point you were trying to make about that HTML exploit example, although the only parallel I could draw to the topic is that you are saying that the FBI was inconvenienced in some way by this video. Um, OK... Although, you may be right about that. Let's get rid of the other inconveniences to law enforcement agencies; and since a little bad press by a silly video doesn't really put the FBI out in any way, let's target the things that make enforcing the laws of the land so inconvenient. Let's start by getting rid of those stupid warrants, they just make it harder to "protect and serve"; hell, let's just trash Due Process altogether. That should help remove some of the REAL inconveniences that the FBI has to deal with.

"Think not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." - JFK

His wife couldn't trust him, but I can? I may not be the president, but I honor my oaths, even the one that I took years ago that begins, "I DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR THAT I WILL SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES AGAINST ALL ENEMIES, FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC." I'm not going to begin rattling off exerpts from the Constitution mention hear, as it is available in many places online; you're welcome to check it out, particularly the sections detailing the duties of the Executive Branch versus the Judicial Branch and the Bill of Rights.

We all need to live by those words. The needs of the few do not outweigh the needs of the many, except in the minds of children and romantics.

And had this stupid video actually threatened anyone, I may be inclined to agree, but the only threat demonstated here is the complete disregard of the legal rights of the common citizen (the many) by the FBI (the few). As you stated, you are a semi-fascist, so it is not likely that you will understand why these small violations of independant freedoms cannot be ignored, but then neither did the non-Jewish German citizens when an idiot with a stupid mustache forced their neighbors to start wearing a bright yellow star on their clothing; after all, it didn't hurt anyone, did it?

Deosyne

grassroots

[Noer]

What has to happen, is this guy needs to grant permission (if he wants) for his movie to be freely distributable. Then, EVERYONE hosts it. I'll put it up on 3 separate webservers. Is the FBI going to harass a few thousand peoples' different ISPs into shutting them down? If they did, that'd be a BIG news headline, carried in the mainstream media. And that's what the FBI does NOT want.

FCC anyone?

[Fesh]

First time I've heard it suggested that the FCC is an industry-based organization... If you want industry self-regulation, think the folks that put the ratings on movies.
--Fesh

There is a solution..

[Weezul]

If the FBI wants to try to surpress this then lets make shure that they can not. We need more mirrors in other countries and we need to let Mike Z. put his whole site up, not just the flick. We can spread this thing without the artists help, but then the FBI has been at least partially successful since the artist recieves less benifit from his work. If someone knows the artist please incurage him to take advantage of some the new hosting opertunities.

Jeff

Re:There is a solution..

[treat]

we need to let Mike Z. put his whole site up, not just the flick.

We definately need the whole site that was shut down. We're doing good by mirroring the .ram, but we're not preventing the censorship unless we are mirroring the whole site that was shut down.

Someone make it available, and I'll see to it that it is mirrored in at least 5 different countries.

(posted as AC to protect myself when I start mirroring this all over)

Re:There is a solution..

[treat]

(posted as AC to protect myself when I start mirroring this all over)

Or maybe I checked the box twice by accident. I'll do it anyway though.

verify story? Re:I'm Dubious...

[doc_brown]

Can somebody in NJ call the local US Attorney's office and see if there really is a Lisa Korologos who talked to the ISP? How about also calling the NJ FBI office and seeing if agents Dan Calemina and Joe Metzinger really exist? One of those places would at least be able to verify if the story is true.

BTW: The names are pulled from the Village Voice article.

Jim

Re:verify story? Re:I'm Dubious...

[shri]

ipw crowdedtheater.com gives me.

Well folks.. there IS a number there to call.

OLM,LLC (NETBLK-OLM-03)
3080 Ogden Ave
Milford, CT 06460

Netname: OLM-03
Netblock: 216.71.0.0 - 216.71.223.255
Maintainer: OLM

Coordinator:
Administrator, Dns (DA16-ARIN) dns@AXXS.NET
630-357-8538 (FAX) 630-357-8545

Domain System inverse mapping provided by:

NS.HOST4U.NET 207.58.117.9
NS2.HOST4U.NET 209.150.128.15

ADDRESSES WITHIN THIS BLOCK ARE NON-PORTABLE

Record last updated on 23-Nov-1999.
Database last updated on 24-Nov-1999 03:52:20 EDT.

Mirror Central - Help Wanted!

[Anonymous Coward]

Could anyone help out with this? I can't do this on my own - I've got piles of coursework to do already! To help in any way, however big or small, please visit the temporary page at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/greenrd/mirror/ and sign up to the discuss mailing list or forum. Thanks!

(I'm only posting this anonymously because my email inbox is full and I don't want a flood of emails. It doesn't take a genius to find my email addresses, but please don't bother.)

An AC wrote:

what we need now is an example of a slashdot-mirror effect, where a controversial piece of material supressed by the authorities gets so widely distributed that they can't get to every copy of it.

Absolutely. We need a Mirror Central where people can volunteer to host controversial stuff that has been censored. This is no idle speculation - see above for URL. You could have a mailing list which thousands of people could sign up to (obviously not everyone would have the free space to host RealPlayer files, but there would be smaller stuff too) which would send out news about which sites are either:

• Under actual threat of censorship
• Highly likely to be censored (but what criteria would we use for this? Hmmm...)
• Actually have been shut down, but have been mirrored and could use more mirrors.

Members would obviously be able to choose for themselves which to mirror, if any. Mirror Central would contain a central directory of mirrored sites, which could turn into quite an interesting bunch of both oddballs, crackpots and also very interesting and insightful material.

(Of course, you could get flooded by thousands of people claiming their sleazy website was shut down by Geocities and "It's Censorship!". Without debating whether it was censorship or whether it was justified [Terms of Service anyone?], there is a very simple solution to this - just sort by topic. Those who want to mirror, say, adult banner farms are free to do so - but I don't think there'll be many takers. Once the sleazeballs realise no-one is going to help them, they'll go away - sure, there'll always be the stupid ones, but this is a small price to pay for such a great tool for freedom of speech and expression. Anyway, more about this on the site and in the discussion groups - it's not completely black-and-white.)

You could also have a separate mailing list which would have regular news digests about sites which had been successfully rescued.

The only question is, who hosts Mirror Central? It almost goes without saying that they'll need to have a sufficiently unrestricted Terms of Service for our needs, and quite a hefty chunk of bandwidth. It needs to be a provider who is not easily scared by threats of litigation - and since, judging by their past record, the Church of Scientology might try to get something else about them removed soon, it'll need to be someone who can stand up to them. (!!!!)

Of course Mirror Central would itself be mirrored, but you'd need one or two high-bandwidth main URLs to list it by in search engines and directories - the latter simply don't go in for listing multiple mirrors for the same site.

We could also include sections and software on how to get round blocking software, and could get a huge number of hits by cross-linking with other anti-censorship sites (just think EFF!).

And perhaps it could do with a better name as well...

Right, anyway, time to stop talking and start acting. A search on "censorship mirror" on Metacrawler doesn't bring up any sites like Mirror Central, so it appears that no-one's successfully done this before (or maybe they have but it hasn't had time to show up on Metacrawler yet). Okay, I've just registered http://mirrorcentral.cjb.net as a temporary measure only - just to get the idea going and as a rallying point and a launching point. This redirect URL was working when I tried it just now, but if it isn't, the real URL is http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/greenrd/mirror/ . The site will initially contain an intro to what this is and two mailing lists (one for discussion of the idea and co-operating on the site, one for alerts of sites that need mirroring) - once we decide on a cool name we can register a domain name and do some serious site design (but who would everyone trust to be the owner? Hmmm... something to think about. I suppose in the long term you'd want a Mirror Central Foundation or whatever with stated objectives, so that the domain name(s) can't be legally misused by the registrant, but again, it would be good to get this up and running on an ad hoc basis ASAP).

The way I envisage it, Mirror Central wouldn't actually host or contain any mirrors itself. That way, as long as no court is stupid enough to rule that mere linking consitutes copyright infringement, libel etc. or whatever the alleged violation is (unfortunately, this is far from out of the question), mirrors can be attacked one by one but the centre is legally speaking untouchable. And, legalities aside, if we can build up Mirror Central into something really popular and interesting, it could become so popular that shutting it down would cause an unconscionable outcry!

Of course decentralisation is important - the less people rely on one centralised site, the better - mirrors should link to each other so that even if Mirror Central goes down people can still navigate. The license of the Mirror Central directory could be almost exactly the same as the Open Directory license - allowing free use and modification, but requiring an attribution link back to Central.

It would actually be extremely simple to write software to find a way in to the "mirror web", even if a large number of sites including Mirror Central were down - you could either use special keywords invented for this specific purpose thru search engines to find a way in, or just simple polling, or both.

[This was added at both top and bottom because /. truncates long comments] Could anyone help out with this? I can't do this on my own - I've got piles of coursework to do already! To help in any way, however big or small, please visit the temporary page at http://www.lancs.ac.uk/ug/greenrd/mirror/ and sign up to the discuss mailing list or forum. Thanks!

--
Robin Green

background on the story not a hoax

[Anonymous Coward]

As the author of the Voice story let me just add to this discussion the fact that I did contact both the FBI and US Attorney for comment. Got one of the FBI agents on the phone and he said he didn't talk to the press, but didn't deny the incident either. Same answer at the US Attorney's office. In my experience, if agents and the attorney hadn't been involved they would have flatly denied Z's account. In fact, it took the US attorney's office all day to decide what they were going to say to me, so obviously they were thinking it over. Furthermore, collusion between Becamation and Z. seems unlikely, given that Becamation ends up seeming less than adamant about protecting the First Amendment. I did also talk to the Becamation guy and he confirmed Z's account.

Re:background on the story not a hoax

[phil reed]

Can you contact the artist and get us permission to mirror it? There are bunches of people ready to go.


...phil

Re:Why Troll?

[Malatov]

It bothers me as well. Not reading Orwell and using the term "Big Brother" is irritating because the whole concept is pivotal to the book and vice versa. Don't worry, you're not an old curmudgeon, your just "old school" (in modern parlance). Enough to make you gag?

Re: Find yourself a medium you control

[Porky Pig]

This isn't easy. A lower tier ISPs are connected to the higher tier ISPs etc etc. There are very few top-tier ISPs (like UUNET, PSINET, AT&T), and those folks would rather work with government than with you. Of course if you have several billion dollars you can start building your own upper-tier ISP (take a look at NEXTLINK, for instance).

The bottom line is that it is not sufficient just to have a right of free speach. There got to be resources provided so you can exercise that right. Otherwise the right of free speach would be few a few billioners.

Re:welcome to the zoo

[Malacai[GDI]]

I just watched the video. It is rather pathetic and scary. I would have to see how the video was presented within the context of the entire site to really know what he meant by it.

The video itself talks of:

- rioting in Times Square when Y2K drops
- rape ("our lady" gets stripped and we've got a front row seat)
- racial hatred (use the "black thing" with sympathetic white folks nearby)
- gun fire (hot lead will be flying)

it generally depicts someone's plan to surround the area and trigger a riot. he talks like it's a military operation and never shows his face.

granted, it does seem like a complete hoax, but it is still spooky.

Re:United States Goverment is so two face

[Malacai[GDI]]

woah dude. you are taking this stuff WAY too seriously.

because it has seconds and tenths of seconds, it's a "bomb-like" mechanism?

you crack me up!

Defending the Feds!

[swordgeek]

I know we all love to be free and rightous, but has anyone considered that the FBI might be in the right here?

I mean, what if they had just come in, shackled the artist, and slapped him with "Disemmination of false and inflammatory information," libel, etc.? Sure stuff like this is shown in movies and on TV all the time, but if you read the credits, they always have a disclaimer of, "this is a work of fiction, blah blah."

Do you get it? If he's implying that this is real footage, then he's leaving himself open too all sorts of perfectly legal and arguably justifiable action.

I'm not a fan of government crackdowns, but I'm also not a fan of people using "free speech" to mess with someone else's freedom from persecution.

Re:welcome to the zoo

[Malacai[GDI]]

ok... watched the video first and now read the village voice article. it gives the needed context.

I think distributing the RAM file without the entire site or SOMETHING to give it proper context is bad. the video alone *is* a bit too scary for my tastes and *is* akin to shouting "FIRE!" in a crowded theater.

remember, your civil rights end when the encroach on another's. the moment I am trampled by a crowd due to some moron's fake "FIRE!" scream is just past the moment his rights ended... and the moment I whip his ass! hehehehe :P

'Libel' vs. 'Clear and Present Danger'

[Serra]

The question: "Will the FBI shut down every site mentioning disruption on 01/01/2000?" (in the original post) is seriously misleading. The original post and many of the replies here indicate that the FBI was trying to stop distribution of an artist's work because it was threatening to the public's safety. However, after reading the article, I came away with the impression that the FBI wanted the video pulled because it was libelous , not because it might instigate violence. The website presented the video not as a work of art, but as a true documentary which showed the FBI doing something very wrong. While the FBI's actions may not have been appropriate, the issue here doesn't seem to be about 'a clear and present danger' at all.

Did the /. posters who are so worked up about government censorship even read the article? - Serra

Re:'Libel' vs. 'Clear and Present Danger'

[Skwirl]

Hmm. That's a good point and should be moderated up, methinks. However, it still don't justify the Fed's involvement. First of all, the video portrayed the _army_ instigating the riot. What do the Feds care if there's libel about the army? I think the real issue has nothing to do with whatever precident the Feds thought justified their harassment of the artist and his ISP. Some guy probably saw the video, got pissed off, and decided to use his power to take it down. I seriously doubt he considered his legal precident in doing so, because, if he cared about First Amendment law, he never would have considered censoring it in the first place.

yo!

[Travoltus]

I am all for bandwidth co-ops. When are those guys in San Francisco going to show the rest of us how it's done?? :)

Re:yo!

[bonehead]

I don't think bandwidth co-ops go far enough. Personally, I'd like to see a completely grass-roots internet developed. No government involvement whatsoever. No reliance on the resources of large corporations, such as the telcos.

That is the only way to guarantee the perpetuity of a free, unregulated, and untaxed means of communication.

Obviously, it would have to be wireless, since laying new cable would be cost prohibitive. Anyone working on IP over CB radio? :-) OK, ham would work, but it's subject to licensing, and the equipment is more expensive. Then just implement a simple routing scheme based on latitude and longitude, and start adding nodes. Simple, effective, free, and (theoretically) impervious to government or corporate controls.

Oh well, a guy can dream, can't he?

International Driver's Permit.

[UnknownSoldier]

> Aren't those invalid in the country you're a citizen of?

You are thinking of these two stipulations (which can be found on the back):
- Not valid in the country of issue.
- Not valid for the transportation of persons or property for hire.



The full text, which is interesting to read, is as follows.

"Convention of International Road Traffic of 19 September, 1949

This Permit is issued under International Law and the Law of Nations. By signing this Permit, Holder described herein, Certifies that He/She has all the necessary skills to safely operate a motorized conveyance as required by law. This Permit Remains in force until revoked or suspended under due process of Law, or, supersceded by bona fide contracts and/or agreements with other States, countries, or entities. The Holder assumes full responsibility for any use and/or misuse of this Permit. It is understood that this Permit shall in no way effect the Holder to conform to the positive Laws and regulations in force within each state or country Holder travels.

This Permit may be present in over 200 contracting and independent countries. Some countries may require a special registration fee be paid in addition to the possession of this Permit. Consistent with international regulations, this Permit is Not valid in the country of issue.

Not valid for the transportation of persons or property for hire."


Even more interesting is the Manufacturer's Statement of Origin. Here are some links.

http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Senate/4417 /vehiclecertorig.html
http://teaminfinity.com/~ralph/dl.html
http://www.ironsoft.com/lp/driving.html
http://aero.net/silver/Driving.htm

Cheers

Don't be facetious...

[forii]

I read the Natvan link. It doesn't look like racist drivel.

The whole link discusses people solely in terms of their ethnicity. It insinuates (without evidence) a media conspiracy to slander "racially conscious" white people. It uses purely pejorative terms to describe Jews, and finishes with the statement that "it is our inescapable responsibility to do whatever is necessary to break [Jewish media control]" (italics in original).

To me, making unsubstantiated, inflammatory speech constitutes "drivel". Speaking about things in a purely racial context is (as described in the paper, "racist". Hence I would agree with the previous comment that it is, indeed, Racist Drivel.

Come again? You're living in Lalaland.

[Rares Marian]

I happen to like my ISP they refuse to censor material. Chack SNET's policy web page at SNET.net.

So what's the moral of the story? Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies. How you do that is up to you.

This is a reason to opt for T1 Lines asd ADSL. Of course the roads aren't paved with gold. Are you saying only rich people should have protection.

Similarly, the FBI (or anyone else) does not have to get any sort of legal document to tell an ISP to wipe out your web site. All they have to do is ask nicely, and get the ISP to agree that they shouldn't be supporting this. Then, subject to the agreement that you have with your ISP (which almost ALWAYS protect the ISP, and practically never gives you any say in
anything at all), your pages get trashed. End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all.

Hello, Earth to Garin. Let's not even talk about possibilities of mass censorship here. And I won't even go into the question of tact and attitude, or should I say manners. I don't have to.

1. That same ISP often gets money by using my site to advertise. Therefore it is obviously my content and my resources he/she/it is making money from.

One must remember something extremely important: free speech is protected.... HOWEVER.... Nothing says that anyone else must support your message with their resources. For example, you have the right to publish and distribute your own magazine, but you do NOT have the right to demand that an arbitrary magazine publishes your essays.

You're so wrong. So fucking wrong. I'm the publisher not the ISP. This is like saying that the publisher is the company giveing me collocated space on a server I paid for. Or even if I didn't didn't. Whatever the deal is it's my server

--Rares
"Computers should be ... tools... (siglim 120 chars)" Like cars... to the office no more no less.

Re:International Driver's Permit (IDP)

[UnknownSoldier]

> Is it therefore possible to get one issued in a country other than my own, and then use it in the country where I am a citizen?

Yes.

I understand where you are coming from, as I didn't know about an International Driver's Permit until last year either.

Recently a law officer stopped me for speeding, and asked for my Driver's License and Registration. I just gave him my IDP. After seeing my IDP (since he had never seen one before), he asked me: Is this what you use?

I replied: Yes. The back has more info.

After spending a few minutes looking it over, he said: Just watch your speed.

Since he never gave me a ticket for driving without a license, that was proof enough for me that you DON'T need a driver's license to freely travel.

It's all about jurisdiction. The officer knew that I was out of his, hence no tickets (for speeding, or driving without a license.)

Cheers

Where is the line?

[Gonzodoggy]

I haven't seen the video, but, according to the Village Voice, the video is prefaced with the statement that it comes from someone named Steve who's in the Army and that this may be genuine footage... Does anyone recall the panic created by the original broadcast of "War of the Worlds"? Midway into the broadcast, announcers had to assure people that it was only a radio play. Now, I'm not a lawyer, but, by alluding to the footage as being genuine, it could be interpreted as being libelous/slanderous, in which case, the ISP had no choice but to remove the ad or face liability themselves. While I'm opposed to most forms of censorship (other than self-censorship), it might have been more appropriate to add some type of disclaimer that this is for entertainment and not meant to be taken seriously, then perhaps, the FBI, et.al. might not have done anything. We've already seen the damage that can occur when people post supposedly genuine news articles (i.e. the bogus story about the company that was about to be bought out by another causing the stock to artificially inflate) Since we already know that most people don't think for themselves, it's completely possible that some people might have seen that and taken action. We could potentially been faced with people acting out their perceived role in the video. It's also possible that others might want to prevent such action by the government and mis-interpreted someones completely innocent comment or actions and incited violence themselves.

Re:Where is the line?

[Malacai[GDI]]

the *video* contains no such statement, I *think* that was on the web site on which it was posted.

the video looks real -- like some crackpot and his gang of thugs is planning to start some sh%^ in times square. he pans around to different views, landmarks, mentions specific street blocks where people are to position themselves, etc...

regardless, your point is well taken! i downloaded the video before reading the article and it immediately kicks into the operational logistics of the "mission" and it is pretty disturbing! IMHO, anyway! thank goodness it is a joke(art?).

i *do* bet, however that there will indeed be violent crackpots there for the big apple drop. if they say that they viewed the video when caught... our artist might get some unwelcomed publicity!

FCC

[mantis_p]

http://www.fcc.gov/

The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission and it regulates just about anything from radio, TV, and cell phone manufacturing (it sets rules for certain technologies which MUST be part of a particular item, among other things) to what can and cannot be broadcast via those media. It is a government agency here in the US and has a LOT to do with what can be said via broadcast media.

~m

FBI Does what it wants

[syates21]

I think it's a line from "The Firm" (or some other John Grisham-y book/movie) where the FBI goes:
"Are you kidding? We're the FBI. I can kick in your teeth and yank 'em out your ass, and I'm not even violating your civil rights!"

Not to far off I guess.

Re:When does it stop? Maybe it wont

[hagar�]

The actions of the FBI in this case may have been illegal. I dont claim to be a legal expert in the US. The ACLU will sue the Government.

Will this get the author his web service back? Maybe, but i doubt it.
Will it get him money in damages from a lawsuit? Perhaps.
Will this stop the government from intimidating anyone ever again if they are found guilty?
Hell no!

Just because something may be illegal, it doesnt make it impossible. Murder is illegal, but they happen every day. Some guns are illegal to own in some countries, but they exist. Some substances are illegal to import, but they are. Piracy is illegal, but i bet a few of you have one or two not quite paid for applications on your PC?

Time to stop pulling the pins on lawyers and throwing them at your enemy. They are costly, and in many cases incompetant in my experience.

In short, I believe alot of the internet community is used to living outside the laws and and boundaries of mere governments and countries.

If your website provider is a weany, get a new one.

If the laws in your country regarding your Providor are crap, get a server in another country.

You cant beat people who operate outside a law they claim to enforce. Your only option is to operate outside or around it aswell. Until you decide to do so, feel free to pay the lawyers as much as you can, i hear they like that.

Re:Uhhhh, something sounds fishy here.

[Wench]

Interesting idea. And what about that domain name? Crowdedtheater.com. Geddit?!?

There's a classic line something to the effect that freedom of speech does not give one the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

An artist trolling for response? Sounds extremely plausible.

A Modest Proposal

[lithis]

i forget the author, but that's the one about eating people, right?

Re:A Modest Proposal

[epsilonboy]

A Modest Proposal by Dr. Jonathan Swift, 1729. You can read it online at
http ://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/nonfiction_u/swift j_modest/modest_ch1.html

Re:A Modest Proposal

[Malatov]

I think it's Swift (Jonathon, not Tom)

Mirror

[BrookHarty]

I would like to see this video, Any mirrors? Whats the name of the video? Thanks

Hmmm...

[whocares]

A few thoughts.

1) Anyone, including the FBI, can call up any ISP and try to intimidate them into taking web pages down. Without any actual legal stuff (ie, warrants, etc) there is no reason for the ISP to comply. While I understand why they did so, and I think the intimidation tactics used by the FBI were icky, if they had actually had to jump throgh the proper hoops to remove this web page, it'd probably still be up. It's sad the ISP caved, but ISPs have caved to far less before.

2) I think it's quite understandable why the FBI saw this as a threat. I think the artist understood exactly what he was doing (look at the domain name - crowdedtheatre.com?) and shouldn't be surprised that a movie which presented itself as a military briefing on something that would scare the crap out of lots of people, and then being published as 'possibly true' would be a target of censorship or restriction. It could probably even be considered treasonous, all told. In a different context, it would be less threatening (hell, even Blair Witch Project, which was in movie theatres all over the place and highly hyped, was mistaken for fact by some) but the fact is, you stumble upon the web site because it was mentioned on the news, and what kind of context do you have for it? None save for what he's presented.

A disclaimer or debriefing page would have been the responsible thing to do.

Big Brother....

[TetsuRyu]

Don't everyone get their panties in a bunch, It's only our good 'ol Big Bro looking out for our best interests. I mean seriously, Do you really think the US Gov would really censor anything that we really needed to see anyway? This is America people! Home of the free, Land of the brave. I'll rest easy tonight knowing that everything is strained and spoonfed to me just like it ought to be. Sleep tight all you free people out there in TV land.

1

[halfline]

1

Re:Is this for real or just another publicity stun

[Art Tatum]

Especially when there is *no* attempt to get a comment from "them"

Upon reading the article, it said that neither the FBI nor the U.S. Attorney would comment. I took that to mean that Villiage Voice contacted them but they refused to make a comment. If this was a hoax, I think the FBI probably would have denied the truth of it. Also, upon looking at the FBI site (for contact information) they had something on their front page proudly talking about how they were hunting down all Y2k fear-mongerers to keep our country safe!

Re:jeeez... can you say HOAX!?!?

[Art Tatum]

I do believe that the original story on Villiage Voice talks about trying (unsuccessfully) to get comment from the FBI and U.S. Attorney.

US goverment interaction without an SSN

[Jim Efaw]

But the things that you can do without an SSN in the US are limited more each day. You cannot vote now without one.

C'est what? I'm in the USA, and I've never heard of an election board asking for a social security number. The county I'm in certainly doesn't require it. I think the only thing I had to do was prove my identity somehow (birth certificate?). Having to register somewhere else, before registering to vote, sounds fishy to me, but I'm no constitutional scholar.

You cannot get a job without one unless you fall into certain very difficult to get into categories (oddly enough, like working for the Congress!).

Again, I'm not a legal scholar, but I think that, generally, the operation of Congress is handled separately from the operation of the rest of the country. For example, if a public law said that employees can't do (X), and a person directly employed by the US Congress did (whatever X is), it wouldn't matter to that person, unless Congress specifically applied that law to their internal operation.

Re:Is this for real or just another publicity stun

[guran]

Sorry, missed (or misinterpreted) that sentence. Though "no comment" often means "I never heard of this and I have no time to reply to every supposed case of malpractice. I have real work to do goodbye"

If this was a hoax, I think the FBI probably would have denied the truth of it

But why would they bother? I've seen the movie. I found it crappy and a complete waste of time and bandwidth. If the story hadn't reached /. I would never have heard of it. The FBI webpage seems to talk about cultist, not your everyday scare-people-and-make-a-buck types.
And looking for nervgas-in-the-subway-cults is (IMHO) a valid cause.

The ACLU has too.

[Andrew Cady]

http://www.aclu.org/news/1999/n092099b.html for instance. They're sending lawyers to court over this type of stuff and they've done so before. Give credit where it's due!

Re:Why Troll?

[Malatov]

I like the fun future dystopia books...anything by Vonnegut. Cat's Cradle is good, or the short story "Harrison Bergeron" (sp?)

Crowded Theater on it's way back online

[becamation]

Check out http://216.71.193.215/ until the InterNic reinstates the domain name. You may also check out http://www.becamation.com/crowded.htm for the press release sent to the news. For you that don't want to look here it is. We wanted to offer you this press release on crowdedtheater.com. BECamation, the original provider of service for crowdedtheater.com, will be re-enabling the site. This decision was made after re-examining facts and being made aware of all of the events that transpired with all parties involved. We regret we had to make the decision to pull the site, but without all the information available to us at the time, we felt we had no choice. At the time we were called by the FBI, we attempted to contact the owner of the site. Even though he was aware of the FBI inquiries and had already been contacted by them, he did not tell us that or provide us with any information as to that fact. Not knowing what had transpired or what his standing with the FBI was, we were left to try to determine if legal action had already been taken, if we were in violation of a court order, or what our rights and responsibilities were. Therefore, without that information and not knowing if legal action had been taken or was being taken, we felt we had to comply with the FBI's request. When the FBI and US Attorney's office called BECamation, they announced who they were and asked if we were the owners of crowdedtheater.com. We said no, then they proceeded to tell us that they had traced the site through GTE and back to us. We informed them who the owner of the site was, they informed us that they already knew who he was, they had contacted him and asked him to pull the site down and he refused. They also mentioned that they were in current contact with Mr. Ziephers lawyers. They proceeded to tell us that the tape contained racial slurs and could possibly incite a riot and their jobs were to insure that this did not happen. We responded that we had viewed the tape, was told that it was a farce and that was all it was meant to be. It was similar to X Files or Blair Witch Project and meant only to show the artists cinematography skills. They laid out several negative scenarios and asked that the site be removed. The FBI also told us they had contacted our service provider and left a message asking them to pull the site as well. Not knowing what had transpired with our provider, without any information from Mr. Ziepher, and with the FBI's pressure, we felt we had no choice but to pull the site until further clarification could be obtained. Until we could talk to all parties involved, obtain the information to make a informed choice, we kept the site down. Now with the information needed to make the decision, we are re-enabling the site. We were distressed at the partial information concerning this situation that was posted to the Village Voice, Slashdot, and Hot Wired news. It resulted in inciting some very disturbed people who sent hate e-mail, e-mail viruses, threatening phone calls, e-mail bombs, posts to our guestbook and bulletin board service on our web site, etc. We were displeased that the press made BECamation out to be the "bad guy" and seemed to encourage the harassment aimed toward us. Perhaps with the "other side of the story" available to them, they can write more informed articles.

Wake up, people

[Quintin Stone]

"Congress didn't make a law doing any of those things."

"The FBI in this case would be the executive branch not the legislative branch."

It is the job of the FBI to enforce federal laws. Do you get it? Since that is the case, what federal law were they enforcing in getting this guy to shut down his web site? Law enforcement agencies do not make laws. They do not make policy. What they do is supposed to be limited by the bills written into law by the legislative branch. To say "Congress didn't do it, the FBI did" is the most inane cop out you can say in a case like this. The FBI is also required to follow the law, but history has shown us time and time again that federal law enforcement agencies feel themselves to be above the law that they are supposed to enforce.

OT: Guns, etc...

[tekan]

The "attacks" on the Second Amendment in regards to firearms are actually a piece of a bigger cake, which is the "how-hard-is-it-to-kill-someone" factor. Someone has to be really pissed off and committed to a course of action to kill someone with a baseball bat, a butcher's knife, or something even more blunt. It's a very close and personnal activity. Whereas firearms (and Nukes, Chemical/Biological) are a "standoff" type weapon, useable from a "clean" distance. In other words, just pull the trigger and your problem is supposedly solved.

The bottom line IMHO is a matter of trust. People who support bans on firearms just don't trust those who do have them, and those who do have firearms don't trust those who don't to some extent.

Re:Uhhhh, something sounds fishy here.

[RennieScum]

Well, hell, the site's back up, and it's only 1:54 CST...with 5000 hits (3500 for the ISP's press release, 4300 for the movie page).

So publicity was generated, and quickly. Have to check on this in a week, and 3 weeks. Most of these hoaxes depend on wishful thinking. Remember the Marilyn Manson rumors a few years ago, where he was gonna blow his head off at one of his Florida concerts? Deep down, who paid attention to it? Everybody who heard about it, not just people like me who fantasize about such occurences. Even his fans wanted to see it, wanted to "be there when it happened". So it happens with the military takeover in Times Square.

If it's covert military, why are they worried about the NYPD? Personally, the video didn't spook me in the least. Too many Mardi Gras I guess. Or it's harder to get paranoid these days with so many zombies out there having taken it up as a hobby recently.

Re:Inevitable, uhm no.

[UnknownSoldier]

> To get a bank account, I had to give it
The solution is to open up a non-interest bearing account instead of a normal account. Off-shore banking with a company visa card is even better.


> To get a job, as well
Incorrect. I work without one, and many other sovereigns do as well.

http://www.svpvril.com/ssletter.html
http://www.noneusa.org/
http://www.devvy.com/

Look at form 1040. It says "non-resident aliens who have decided to be taxed."

How do you become a non-resident of the US?

Expatriate and become a sovereign state citizen.

This right is given by:
BILL OF RIGHTS
ARTICLE XIV
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States, and of the State wherein they reside."


> To get a driver's license
Internation Drivers Permit. Valid in over 200 countries. Not valid in the place of issue. You don't even have to have a 2nd citizenship to get one.


> I had to give it up for an apartment
I've had 2 landlords ask me, and both times, I've replied "I don't have one." There is NOTHING they can do, since there is NO law that requires a person to have one.


> You also need an SSN for phone service, and electrical service sometimes.
I've also been asked by utility companies, and again, I tell them, I don' have one. After the shock wears off, I ask them, "Is there a law that requires me to have one?"


> It's not easy to live a normal life in the US without an SSN.

I know many people, myself included, who do manage to get by without a SSN.

I am NOT a number, I am a FREE man.

"Those who would trade liberty for security deserve neither."

I think I can plan for MY retirement better then ANY government.

Cheers