If some tinpot dictator started ethnic cleansing and the new york times got hold of documets about it and published them how would you feel about it? and would you think copyright law should give them the right to shut down the new york times or stop them from printing the information?
If some company was dumping toxic waste into american drinking water and documents about it got published online would you like the company to be able to use copyright law to suppress those documents and stop you from finding out about it?
you can't have it both ways. screw over everyone else then apply the law one way then not have them use the same tactics against you.
either way ask yourself this: If some tinpot dictator started ethnic cleansing and the new york times got hold of documets about it and published them how would you feel about it? and would you think copyright law should give them the right to shut down the new york times or stop them from printing the information?
If some company was dumping toxic waste into american drinking water and documents about it got published online would you like the company to be able to use copyright law to suppress those documents and stop you from finding out about it?
you can't have it both ways. screw over everyone else then apply the law one way then not have them use the same tactics against you.
Right so now violece is anything agressive under any warped definition of agressive too.
Violence is inherently physical, non-violent protest is protest where nobody is injured or killed and no property is damaged.
you're flailing around revising again and again weakly trying to avoid admiting that calling spamming messeges to a computer "violent" is utter and complete bullshit.
"but you have no way of knowing that"
sure,perhaps the blinking of the server lights caused one of the admins to have an epileptic fit and fall over hitting his head. I also have no way of knowing that there isn't a teapot orbiting neptune and have no way of proving that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. but given the abusdity of the claim the burden of proof lies on you to show that anyone did get hurt.
"and even slowing some of them because a congested router is too busy fighting off attack can result in disasterous consequences."
Right, so anyone using excess network resources is a murderer now because you can't prove otherwise. remember kids: if you download from netflix you may be killing someone!!!!
And don't even get me started on those bastards who organise protest letter writing campaigns! How many people die each year because the postal service was too overwhelmed by millions of letters being sent to peoples congressmen and important letters from doctors don't get through! There's no way to decide so lets assume millions die because of this! those violent letter writing bastards! And it's an attack too! tying up government office resources dealing with the millions of letters! So it's even more violent! The electric chairs too good for them!
Spamming messeges to a computer is not violent in any way, it's disruptive but it's utterly non-violent.
right. so your argument has degenerated into "it has the word 'attack' in it's name"
because it's so violent to make an "attack" on someones character. Or to attack a position in a debate. The homophobes like to talk about how gay marriage is an "attack" on their values. yet none of these things are violent.
just because something has the word "attack" in its name or terms associated with it does not make it violent.
This is people sitting at home sending a flood of messeges to a machine so it has trouble responding to other people for a little while.
No people are hurt in any way, no property is damaged. A few people are invonveninced for a few hours.
attacks against the DMCA? what are you babbling about now?
last I heard anonymous had hundreds nodes, not tens of thouands.
If you want to call that "violent" then there is no such thing as non violent protest of any kind.
Walking down a street with signs? well you're blocking traffic and using your force of numbers to disrupt local buisnesses. Standing in front of a buisness with signs? well you're using the power of intimidation and peer pressure to stop people friom going inside. Sitting down in front of a buisness or chaining yourself to a railing? pah! violent! so so violent! on a par with just shooting people really!
And don't get me started on that violent asshole ghandi!
really? it's gradually emerging that this information was available to a remarkably large number of government employees and contractors. You can be utterly certain that all the juciest stuff has already reached any forgien intelligence agency that wanted it.
If anything this exposes how poorly the US has been securing such "secrets". Mainly it's just embarasing to the US government.
it's a safe bet that china and iran already knew damn well everything that was in those cables, they could just pretend they didn't when it was politically expedient. Anything that can be lifted by any one of tens of thouands of staff is eventually going to get put on an SD card and quietly exchanged for a wad of cash.
I can see why some people have reservations about giving they keys to the kingdom to the PHBs I've heard some really horror stories.
"I am the boss thus I demand the most important passwords you have!" Followed by "Password? Oh, ya, I found that big long one hard to remember so I just changed it to my name" Followed by "Someone has hacked our servers! This is your fault as you're in charge of IT security!"
So if you must use the "password under seal" system make sure it's a physical system like a safe which sets off several sirens when used, pages you and delivers a short list of "do not do under any circumstances" instructions along with said passwords to whoever is accessing them.
Why do you say that? it's not surprising in the least:
violence [valns] n 1. the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc. 2. powerful, untamed, or devastating force the violence of the sea 3. great strength of feeling, as in language, etc.; fervour
I suppose you could say these guys are expressing a great strength of feeling if you wanted to twist it horribly.
Violence is all about the physical force. And a DDoS does no physical harm to any human or property. It merely ties up some network resources for a while. It's utterly non-violent in nature.
Why would they bother buying any patent off the inventor when they can just spin off 10 or so trivial patents on any of the even slight variations of the concept?
They then rip off the concept and sell their own liscences and if the real inventor objects they can just threaten to use their own 10 patents against his 1 and tie him up in court until his cute little startup bites the dust.
then they buy the patent for a song when his startup fails and is liquidated.
not really, most people on here aren't too hot on the DDOSing unless they're AC though the slashdot crowd are quicker to shout down some of the more idiotic/sensationalist claims (like people calling the DDOS a "violent attack" ) .
I support wikileaks, I don't support the DDoSing of sites of everyone who ceases doing buisness with them.
An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm.
A boy was picking them up and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You can't save them all. You're not even saving enough to make a difference."
The boy stoped thinking about what he had said. The boy went off to college, learned about buisness and learned how to make useful things. The boy went off and founded his own company with some of his friends and made and incredible amount of money because the boy was very bright and had a tallent for buisness.
Years later as the old man, now positively ancient, walked along the beach spending his days discouraging children from helping starfish the boy, now a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean.
As he passed the young man gave the decrepit old sod the finger and screamed "Can't save them all can I?"
winning isn't a matter of who got the most kills. War isn't a round of counterstrike.
If you decide who won based on the kill ratio or kill totals then Germany won world war 2. If you lose 10,000 soldiers and the other guy loses 100,000 but he ends up controlling whatever you were fighting over and/or he still has lots of soldiers there and you don't then he was won.
Or are you invoking the "slippery slope" argument that if the govt is allowed to shut down a popular site (that happens to be quite illegal), then there's no telling what they'll shut down next?
Please provide any example from any country ever where such a filter was introduced where it was not then abused. Calling it a slipperly slope implies there's more than an infinitesimal chance of it not happening.
You don't know me. You don't even know my name.
You don't know me, you don't even know my name yet when I oppose you your first reaction is to scream that I'm a pirate who steals everything.
why would you suggest that my rights are somehow less valid
copyrights and civil rights are not the same thing.
copyrights are vastly vastly less important.
Yours is a classic ad hominum attack that does nothing to further your argument.
When losing an argument accuse the other side of ad hominum, for added hilarity do so after doing the same yourself.
But why defend illegal behavior in the name of "civil rights" when you can get so much more traction by protesting actual govt abuses when they happen?
because by then it's too late. I'm not defending illegal activities, I'm opposing introducing massive new government powers which are pretty much guaranteed to be abused in order to address an almost trivial problem. As stated, if the only thing police did was shut down dodgy market stalls selling counterfeit football shirts I'd oppose them as well due to their potentials for abuse. it's only because of the more serious crimes like murder, rape and assault that they also address I consider it a reasonable tradeoff. The net has no equivalent violent crimes thus I do not consider gains worth the possibility of going the way of every other filter.
Again, you don't know me or how successful I am.
you jumped to conclusions about me, only fair I jump to conclusions about you in a similar manner.
If you do not download copyrighted content from torrent sites, why defend them?
I don't. I oppose the granting of easily abused powers in order to deal with the minor problem that they are. They are the dodgy market stalls of the internet, "solving" such a trivial problem is not worth giving anyone the power to kick whoever they like off the net.
I can be opposed to your solution or any of the other possible solutions to your problem, viewing them as a case of cure being worse than the disease without being in favour of your the problem. yes torrents are a problem, not a big enough one to justify the price of the almost certain abuses the solution to the problem would entail.
Particularly since no matter how much power is granted any government in the matter it'll just move to darknets and more anonymous distribution methods. There always has been piracy, there always will be piracy and there will always be people complaining about how someone should do something and how we should all be restricted just a little more for the sake of stopping the latest piracy channel. After torrents there's always the darknets and after the darknets there's always the sneakernets and after the sneakernets there's always the IP over pigeons. You can never stop it all and the pirates can adapt vastly faster than any legislators.
It's a game that the pirates will always win and the rest of us can only suffer from.
Why attack me personally when I am only attempting to have a discussion about the facts of the situation before us?
you attacked me first. it must be fun to try to convince yourself you were the one being reasonable all along though.
And I think you sound like a real asshole.
nice to know you don't go in for personal insults or ad hominum attacks.
bullshit. This is the government we're talking about, not some old lady tottering across town.
they're supposed to secure this data against concerted attempts to attain it by foreign intelligence agencies yet they're too inept to stop their own people spontaneously sending it to the press for shits and giggles.
and even in your horrible comparison, wikileaks is not the mugger, they're the local paper who the mugger gave your little black book to after he stole it, read it and noticed that your dates tended to turn up dead and that you were making notes about staking your neighbours.
if it's about the leaders in my country then it's far more likely that the news will be about how they leaned over and took it happily judging by current news.
The US government should have secured it's own databases then if that information is so important. they're the ones who fucked up. not wikileaks. not the other press organisations which are publishing this.
this whole fuckup is squarely on the US governments head.
again and again I see retards like you unable to understand the difference between "leaked by" and "leaked to"
nothing was leaked by wikileaks. A huge amount was leaked *to* wikileaks. use your brain and understand the difference.
asange is not american. wikileaks is not american. It has no duty to america. does it have any less of a duty to the citizens of countries which the US is quietly screwing over or spying on?
And you're not a programmer without being a member of.... well actually you just have to know how to program. And you're not a grave digger unless you... well just digging some graves makes you a grave digger. And you're not a translator unless you're a member of..... actually just being fluent in multiple languages can qualify you as a translator. And you're not a musician unless you're a member of... well being able to play a musical instrument and being called a musician pretty much qualifies you to claim that title.
Anyone who breaks news stories, anyone who does the job of a journalist is a journalist particularly if they do it well and wikileaks have been doing it very well.
the Internet's ability to allow people to self-publish via web sites is not a flaw. it is one of it's best attributes.
and you absolutely can turn up somewhere, claim the title of a journalist and if they want to they might let you in. A bunch of my friends printed themselves off a loads of "[their blog name] news team" t-shirts and when they went out drinking and got into clubs free because club owners wanted to get free advertising. To be fair they did post pictures of their nights at the clubs. fantastic idea though.
you could start publishing your own little newsletter and try turning up up to things and asking to be let in as a reporter for your own newspaper. They don't have to let you in, they might not but you have every right to try.
It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.
It is damned retarded though. a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.
Slashdot Mirror
and so the question stands:
If some tinpot dictator started ethnic cleansing and the new york times got hold of documets about it and published them how would you feel about it? and would you think copyright law should give them the right to shut down the new york times or stop them from printing the information?
If some company was dumping toxic waste into american drinking water and documents about it got published online would you like the company to be able to use copyright law to suppress those documents and stop you from finding out about it?
you can't have it both ways.
screw over everyone else then apply the law one way then not have them use the same tactics against you.
and yet people claim that copyright doesn't hurt freedom of speach.
"no you can't show anyone those documents about us spying on people, we've copyrighted them"
It depends on if the US government created the cables or if it had some outside entity create them and assign the copyright.
http://stason.org/TULARC/business/copyright/3-6-Can-the-government-copyright-its-works.html
either way ask yourself this:
If some tinpot dictator started ethnic cleansing and the new york times got hold of documets about it and published them how would you feel about it? and would you think copyright law should give them the right to shut down the new york times or stop them from printing the information?
If some company was dumping toxic waste into american drinking water and documents about it got published online would you like the company to be able to use copyright law to suppress those documents and stop you from finding out about it?
you can't have it both ways.
screw over everyone else then apply the law one way then not have them use the same tactics against you.
Right so now violece is anything agressive under any warped definition of agressive too.
Violence is inherently physical, non-violent protest is protest where nobody is injured or killed and no property is damaged.
you're flailing around revising again and again weakly trying to avoid admiting that calling spamming messeges to a computer "violent" is utter and complete bullshit.
"but you have no way of knowing that"
sure,perhaps the blinking of the server lights caused one of the admins to have an epileptic fit and fall over hitting his head.
I also have no way of knowing that there isn't a teapot orbiting neptune and have no way of proving that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
but given the abusdity of the claim the burden of proof lies on you to show that anyone did get hurt.
"and even slowing some of them because a congested router is too busy fighting off attack can result in disasterous consequences."
Right, so anyone using excess network resources is a murderer now because you can't prove otherwise.
remember kids: if you download from netflix you may be killing someone!!!!
And don't even get me started on those bastards who organise protest letter writing campaigns!
How many people die each year because the postal service was too overwhelmed by millions of letters being sent to peoples congressmen and important letters from doctors don't get through!
There's no way to decide so lets assume millions die because of this!
those violent letter writing bastards!
And it's an attack too!
tying up government office resources dealing with the millions of letters!
So it's even more violent!
The electric chairs too good for them!
Spamming messeges to a computer is not violent in any way, it's disruptive but it's utterly non-violent.
right.
so your argument has degenerated into "it has the word 'attack' in it's name"
because it's so violent to make an "attack" on someones character.
Or to attack a position in a debate.
The homophobes like to talk about how gay marriage is an "attack" on their values.
yet none of these things are violent.
just because something has the word "attack" in its name or terms associated with it does not make it violent.
This is people sitting at home sending a flood of messeges to a machine so it has trouble responding to other people for a little while.
No people are hurt in any way, no property is damaged.
A few people are invonveninced for a few hours.
it's about as non violent as non-violent gets.
attacks against the DMCA?
what are you babbling about now?
last I heard anonymous had hundreds nodes, not tens of thouands.
If you want to call that "violent" then there is no such thing as non violent protest of any kind.
Walking down a street with signs? well you're blocking traffic and using your force of numbers to disrupt local buisnesses.
Standing in front of a buisness with signs? well you're using the power of intimidation and peer pressure to stop people friom going inside.
Sitting down in front of a buisness or chaining yourself to a railing? pah! violent! so so violent! on a par with just shooting people really!
And don't get me started on that violent asshole ghandi!
really?
it's gradually emerging that this information was available to a remarkably large number of government employees and contractors.
You can be utterly certain that all the juciest stuff has already reached any forgien intelligence agency that wanted it.
If anything this exposes how poorly the US has been securing such "secrets".
Mainly it's just embarasing to the US government.
it's a safe bet that china and iran already knew damn well everything that was in those cables, they could just pretend they didn't when it was politically expedient.
Anything that can be lifted by any one of tens of thouands of staff is eventually going to get put on an SD card and quietly exchanged for a wad of cash.
I can see why some people have reservations about giving they keys to the kingdom to the PHBs
I've heard some really horror stories.
"I am the boss thus I demand the most important passwords you have!"
Followed by
"Password? Oh, ya, I found that big long one hard to remember so I just changed it to my name"
Followed by
"Someone has hacked our servers! This is your fault as you're in charge of IT security!"
So if you must use the "password under seal" system make sure it's a physical system like a safe which sets off several sirens when used, pages you and delivers a short list of "do not do under any circumstances" instructions along with said passwords to whoever is accessing them.
not really no.
"an unjust or unwarranted exertion of force or power, as against rights or laws: to take over a government by violence"
they're not taking over any government by force.
They're not excerting any kind of force in any way.
they have little or no power.
So no.
you're talking bullshit
bullshit (blsht) Vulgar Slang
n.
1. Foolish, deceitful, or boastful language.
2. Something worthless, deceptive, or insincere.
3. Insolent talk or behavior.
Why do you say that?
it's not surprising in the least:
violence [valns]
n
1. the exercise or an instance of physical force, usually effecting or intended to effect injuries, destruction, etc.
2. powerful, untamed, or devastating force the violence of the sea
3. great strength of feeling, as in language, etc.; fervour
I suppose you could say these guys are expressing a great strength of feeling if you wanted to twist it horribly.
Violence is all about the physical force.
And a DDoS does no physical harm to any human or property.
It merely ties up some network resources for a while.
It's utterly non-violent in nature.
Why would they bother buying any patent off the inventor when they can just spin off 10 or so trivial patents on any of the even slight variations of the concept?
They then rip off the concept and sell their own liscences and if the real inventor objects they can just threaten to use their own 10 patents against his 1 and tie him up in court until his cute little startup bites the dust.
then they buy the patent for a song when his startup fails and is liquidated.
I think 'CPS' is child protective services in this context.
not really, most people on here aren't too hot on the DDOSing unless they're AC though the slashdot crowd are quicker to shout down some of the more idiotic/sensationalist claims (like people calling the DDOS a "violent attack" ) .
I support wikileaks, I don't support the DDoSing of sites of everyone who ceases doing buisness with them.
a DDoS is like getting a big crowd of people to stand in front of the doors of a store to make it really hard for anyone else to get in.
It's utterly non-violent in the sense that it's does no physical harm to any human and it damages no property.
it is however illegal and given how much bandwidth amazon has, it's akin to spitting at a thunder storm.
An old man walked up a shore littered with thousands of starfish, beached and dying after a storm.
A boy was picking them up and flinging them back into the ocean. "Why do you bother?" the old man scoffed. "You can't save them all. You're not even saving enough to make a difference."
The boy stoped thinking about what he had said.
The boy went off to college, learned about buisness and learned how to make useful things.
The boy went off and founded his own company with some of his friends and made and incredible amount of money because the boy was very bright and had a tallent for buisness.
Years later as the old man, now positively ancient, walked along the beach spending his days discouraging children from helping starfish the boy, now a man roared past him in a giant automatic beach combing and starfish catapulting machine which he had designed and built with his massive fortune as part of a fleet of vehicles to comb the worlds seashores spewing starfish back into the ocean.
As he passed the young man gave the decrepit old sod the finger and screamed
"Can't save them all can I?"
which would be shaky at best even if they were american.
This applies to wikileaks about as much as Chinese laws against promoting discontent apply to americans.
winning isn't a matter of who got the most kills.
War isn't a round of counterstrike.
If you decide who won based on the kill ratio or kill totals then Germany won world war 2.
If you lose 10,000 soldiers and the other guy loses 100,000 but he ends up controlling whatever you were fighting over and/or he still has lots of soldiers there and you don't then he was won.
Or are you invoking the "slippery slope" argument that if the govt is allowed to shut down a popular site (that happens to be quite illegal), then there's no telling what they'll shut down next?
Please provide any example from any country ever where such a filter was introduced where it was not then abused.
Calling it a slipperly slope implies there's more than an infinitesimal chance of it not happening.
You don't know me. You don't even know my name.
You don't know me, you don't even know my name yet when I oppose you your first reaction is to scream that I'm a pirate who steals everything.
why would you suggest that my rights are somehow less valid
copyrights and civil rights are not the same thing.
copyrights are vastly vastly less important.
Yours is a classic ad hominum attack that does nothing to further your argument.
When losing an argument accuse the other side of ad hominum, for added hilarity do so after doing the same yourself.
But why defend illegal behavior in the name of "civil rights" when you can get so much more traction by protesting actual govt abuses when they happen?
because by then it's too late.
I'm not defending illegal activities, I'm opposing introducing massive new government powers which are pretty much guaranteed to be abused in order to address an almost trivial problem.
As stated, if the only thing police did was shut down dodgy market stalls selling counterfeit football shirts I'd oppose them as well due to their potentials for abuse.
it's only because of the more serious crimes like murder, rape and assault that they also address I consider it a reasonable tradeoff.
The net has no equivalent violent crimes thus I do not consider gains worth the possibility of going the way of every other filter.
Again, you don't know me or how successful I am.
you jumped to conclusions about me, only fair I jump to conclusions about you in a similar manner.
If you do not download copyrighted content from torrent sites, why defend them?
I don't. I oppose the granting of easily abused powers in order to deal with the minor problem that they are.
They are the dodgy market stalls of the internet, "solving" such a trivial problem is not worth giving anyone the power to kick whoever they like off the net.
I can be opposed to your solution or any of the other possible solutions to your problem, viewing them as a case of cure being worse than the disease without being in favour of your the problem.
yes torrents are a problem, not a big enough one to justify the price of the almost certain abuses the solution to the problem would entail.
Particularly since no matter how much power is granted any government in the matter it'll just move to darknets and more anonymous distribution methods.
There always has been piracy, there always will be piracy and there will always be people complaining about how someone should do something and how we should all be restricted just a little more for the sake of stopping the latest piracy channel.
After torrents there's always the darknets and after the darknets there's always the sneakernets and after the sneakernets there's always the IP over pigeons.
You can never stop it all and the pirates can adapt vastly faster than any legislators.
It's a game that the pirates will always win and the rest of us can only suffer from.
Why attack me personally when I am only attempting to have a discussion about the facts of the situation before us?
you attacked me first. it must be fun to try to convince yourself you were the one being reasonable all along though.
And I think you sound like a real asshole.
nice to know you don't go in for personal insults or ad hominum attacks.
bullshit.
This is the government we're talking about, not some old lady tottering across town.
they're supposed to secure this data against concerted attempts to attain it by foreign intelligence agencies yet they're too inept to stop their own people spontaneously sending it to the press for shits and giggles.
and even in your horrible comparison, wikileaks is not the mugger, they're the local paper who the mugger gave your little black book to after he stole it, read it and noticed that your dates tended to turn up dead and that you were making notes about staking your neighbours.
you are correct of course. :D
I retract that statement.
you do not need to be able to play an instrument to be a musician.
if it's about the leaders in my country then it's far more likely that the news will be about how they leaned over and took it happily judging by current news.
The US government should have secured it's own databases then if that information is so important.
they're the ones who fucked up.
not wikileaks.
not the other press organisations which are publishing this.
this whole fuckup is squarely on the US governments head.
again and again I see retards like you unable to understand the difference between "leaked by" and "leaked to"
nothing was leaked by wikileaks.
A huge amount was leaked *to* wikileaks.
use your brain and understand the difference.
asange is not american.
wikileaks is not american.
It has no duty to america.
does it have any less of a duty to the citizens of countries which the US is quietly screwing over or spying on?
Those of us in the rest of the world count too.
they don't call people up going "hey, please please leak us some information"
they left an open invitation to anyone in the world to send them documents anonymously.
they are not breaking the law hard as it may be for you to believe.
And you're not a programmer without being a member of.... well actually you just have to know how to program.
And you're not a grave digger unless you... well just digging some graves makes you a grave digger.
And you're not a translator unless you're a member of..... actually just being fluent in multiple languages can qualify you as a translator.
And you're not a musician unless you're a member of... well being able to play a musical instrument and being called a musician pretty much qualifies you to claim that title.
Anyone who breaks news stories, anyone who does the job of a journalist is a journalist particularly if they do it well and wikileaks have been doing it very well.
the Internet's ability to allow people to self-publish via web sites is not a flaw.
it is one of it's best attributes.
and you absolutely can turn up somewhere, claim the title of a journalist and if they want to they might let you in.
A bunch of my friends printed themselves off a loads of "[their blog name] news team" t-shirts and when they went out drinking and got into clubs free because club owners wanted to get free advertising.
To be fair they did post pictures of their nights at the clubs.
fantastic idea though.
you could start publishing your own little newsletter and try turning up up to things and asking to be let in as a reporter for your own newspaper.
They don't have to let you in, they might not but you have every right to try.
It doesn't discredit wikileaks though fox news types will probably claim wikileaks are the ones doing it.
It is damned retarded though.
a good ad campaign (mastercard doesn't care about freedom of speech etc) and taking your buisness elsewhere would do much more.