Plenty of "private defense contractors" (read:mercenary organizations) out there already, why not? The way the world is going, private armies are practically an inevitability.
If they were to move some FAKE servers out into the middle of the ocean and just wait to see what happened, the results might be very interesting.
I'd imagine they could prove a very good point about the lengths governments will go to in order to censor information - or at least take some attention off of the actual servers.
There are tools out there that allow for decentralized P2P message boards.
There's not much on there worth reading right now but do you not feel such things would become increasingly popular if the public internet were forced to pretty much end user commenting?
People like talking to each other; it's what the internet's always been used for. Other uses come and go but communication's always been there and people will find a way to keep communicating.
Of course, this wouldn't be a thing if law enforcement spent their resources better than on tracking down people swapping this stuff around.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's much like the war on drugs; cracking down on people who possess child pornography is treating a symptom. Most people looking at pictures are no harm to anyone, the same way that most people playing violent video games are not going to go out and shoot anyone or most people watching adult pornography are not going to go out and rape anyone. Studying trends SEEMS to indicate that the incidence of sex crimes is reduced anywhere that has the internet.
So maybe they should be focusing their limited resources on crimes that actually harm others. No wonder taxes are so high if they're spending their time tracking everyone with an encrypted connection.
Not that this is probably going to be a popular opinion.
If you're using TOR, you should have the intelligence to run several of the independent privacy tests out there. If you don't have the wherewithal to secure your connection, get out of the water and do some learning until you can swim.
I test my TOR anonymity on a roughly weekly basis, on three different sites. There are other ways to further anonymize your connection. Do some research before jumping off the deep end, don't do anything painfully stupid, and you'll be fine.
Keep in mind, too, that governments have limited resources and are just as liable as you or I to go after the low-hanging fruit instead of chasing after a near-impossible target. For every person who has safely anonymized their connection, there are plenty who are doing stupid things through Internet Explorer on an unobfuscated connection. Guess who law enforcement are going to go after?
Not wanting to start a comment war (I do wish I could send replies privately) I'll make this very, very short and sweet?
I'm not here to defend my beliefs. Arguing on the internet is stupid. My odds of changing anyone's mind (or anyone's) are probably smaller than being struck by lightning twice.
Again, just asking for a little more rational discussion and a little less childish name calling. ' One of the three replies managed this. You may decide which it was for yourself.
That really depends on what you are actually hiding - or not hiding - and why.
I don't think it's appropriate for people to walk around with explosives, no. I also don't think it's appropriate for government to have an unlimited ability to snoop on me as much as I want or come busting into my house because their piece of paper detected ammonia.
Privacy rights are not about protecting the people who are hiding bombs. They're about protecting the much larger section of the population who aren't.
This does not mean that I deny climate change blindly; or at all. Please stop assuming that it does.
The true skeptic - and I consider myself such - requires adequate scientific PROOF of a claim before believing that claim. I am a climate change skeptic because I do not believe that proof to have been offered adequately at this point.
I fully believe in climate change, to be quite clear. The evidence obviously shows it happening.
I believe that we, by which I mean the human race, are having an effect on it.
I remain unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence presented that we are the major cause, or one of the most significant causes.
In the words of Tim Minchin (and I'll give you two quotes):
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
"Show me that it works, and how it works and I will change my mind."
I feel that global warming hysteria is generally a matter of faith, not belief.
I am a skeptic. Do not call me a denier. Do not call me a person of blind faith. Leave all of your dirty name calling, your ad hominems at home. Too many climate change debates are he said,she said. Too many of them are about blind faith and blinder insults.
We are talking about science, ladies, gentlemen and undetermined, so let's act like we are.
I'm glad to see some countries denying the US patent laws although I worry about where it will lead.. we need to face the fact, though, that every minute patent troll are allowed to keep this up, they are damaging smaller companies, stifling innovation and stomping on the true spirit of capitalism.
I have a friend who constantly comes up with great ideas, but he can't develop them because he can't afford to pay off the patent trolls, who do nothing with their patents... it's disgusting.
I would argue that "geeks" are not anti-intellectual as you position, but are increasingly against traditional (and often sorely outdated) methods of gaining knowledge.
I myself am against traditional education, and yet I am a very intelligent, knowledgeable person. I have gained that knowledge by learning on my own, and through others. In today's society you just don't have to go to a special building and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to learn a lot of things.
Anyway, I'm not going to stay on my soapbox... suffice to say that traditional education is, to me, mostly obsolete or in need of a serious overhaul.
As I mentioned in another thread, a new system capable of running the latest browser will run you less than $200 (that's slightly less than 125 pounds sterling, my British friend) if you keep an eye on the bargains.
So, there you go. £36 plus £15 for shipping and you have a system that is capable of running the modern browser of your choice. Web browsers don't require a whole lot of computing power; just more than they did 10 years ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Light speed's too slow! We'll have to go straight to.... Ludicrous Speed!
Plenty of "private defense contractors" (read:mercenary organizations) out there already, why not? The way the world is going, private armies are practically an inevitability.
Knowing them, "hacker community" is "anyone under the age of 30 who owns a computer"
If they were to move some FAKE servers out into the middle of the ocean and just wait to see what happened, the results might be very interesting.
I'd imagine they could prove a very good point about the lengths governments will go to in order to censor information - or at least take some attention off of the actual servers.
It's already mirrored in multiple locations anyway. Even if the servers are seized, the information's not going anywhere, and they must know it.
I really don't know about that, considering that the Statue of Liberty was a gift to America from France.
I object strenuously to your "30 and under" label, sir.
We are not all a bunch of drooling morons, and generalizations about me based on my age do not encourage me to listen to your argument.
There are tools out there that allow for decentralized P2P message boards.
There's not much on there worth reading right now but do you not feel such things would become increasingly popular if the public internet were forced to pretty much end user commenting?
People like talking to each other; it's what the internet's always been used for. Other uses come and go but communication's always been there and people will find a way to keep communicating.
Of course, this wouldn't be a thing if law enforcement spent their resources better than on tracking down people swapping this stuff around.
I'm not saying it's right, but it's much like the war on drugs; cracking down on people who possess child pornography is treating a symptom. Most people looking at pictures are no harm to anyone, the same way that most people playing violent video games are not going to go out and shoot anyone or most people watching adult pornography are not going to go out and rape anyone. Studying trends SEEMS to indicate that the incidence of sex crimes is reduced anywhere that has the internet.
So maybe they should be focusing their limited resources on crimes that actually harm others. No wonder taxes are so high if they're spending their time tracking everyone with an encrypted connection.
Not that this is probably going to be a popular opinion.
First they came for the hackers, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one.
Then they came for the copyright offenders, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one.
Then they came for the protesters, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't one.
Then, they came for me, and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Of course I2P is superior as a Darknet. TOR is not a Darknet.
If you're using TOR, you should have the intelligence to run several of the independent privacy tests out there. If you don't have the wherewithal to secure your connection, get out of the water and do some learning until you can swim.
I test my TOR anonymity on a roughly weekly basis, on three different sites. There are other ways to further anonymize your connection. Do some research before jumping off the deep end, don't do anything painfully stupid, and you'll be fine.
Keep in mind, too, that governments have limited resources and are just as liable as you or I to go after the low-hanging fruit instead of chasing after a near-impossible target. For every person who has safely anonymized their connection, there are plenty who are doing stupid things through Internet Explorer on an unobfuscated connection. Guess who law enforcement are going to go after?
Don't let the door hit you.
Pretty much nobody on the internet cares if you threaten to stop reading their site. Slashdot is no different.
I bow to you, sir.
Not entirely my fault; I'm the one who wrote that headline and it cut off the last three words: "In Seven Years"
To be fair, I didn't think to check the title on the preview... on the other hand, can't think how I'd have shortened it.
Not wanting to start a comment war (I do wish I could send replies privately) I'll make this very, very short and sweet?
I'm not here to defend my beliefs. Arguing on the internet is stupid. My odds of changing anyone's mind (or anyone's) are probably smaller than being struck by lightning twice.
Again, just asking for a little more rational discussion and a little less childish name calling.
'
One of the three replies managed this. You may decide which it was for yourself.
To that one: Good points, well made.
That really depends on what you are actually hiding - or not hiding - and why.
I don't think it's appropriate for people to walk around with explosives, no. I also don't think it's appropriate for government to have an unlimited ability to snoop on me as much as I want or come busting into my house because their piece of paper detected ammonia.
Privacy rights are not about protecting the people who are hiding bombs. They're about protecting the much larger section of the population who aren't.
Innocent until proven guilty, remember?
How can I put this.....
THANK YOU.
I am a skeptic.
This does not mean that I deny climate change blindly; or at all. Please stop assuming that it does.
The true skeptic - and I consider myself such - requires adequate scientific PROOF of a claim before believing that claim. I am a climate change skeptic because I do not believe that proof to have been offered adequately at this point.
I fully believe in climate change, to be quite clear. The evidence obviously shows it happening.
I believe that we, by which I mean the human race, are having an effect on it.
I remain unconvinced by the preponderance of evidence presented that we are the major cause, or one of the most significant causes.
In the words of Tim Minchin (and I'll give you two quotes):
"Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved."
"Show me that it works, and how it works and I will change my mind."
I feel that global warming hysteria is generally a matter of faith, not belief.
I am a skeptic. Do not call me a denier. Do not call me a person of blind faith. Leave all of your dirty name calling, your ad hominems at home. Too many climate change debates are he said,she said. Too many of them are about blind faith and blinder insults.
We are talking about science, ladies, gentlemen and undetermined, so let's act like we are.
Looks like they just clipped a Carlin routine.
Not sure I'd want my payment system running on WiFi... but I'm not an expert on how secure this would be.
Some of us aren't American but disagree with how this is affecting our world. What do you propose we do?
I'm glad to see some countries denying the US patent laws although I worry about where it will lead.. we need to face the fact, though, that every minute patent troll are allowed to keep this up, they are damaging smaller companies, stifling innovation and stomping on the true spirit of capitalism.
I have a friend who constantly comes up with great ideas, but he can't develop them because he can't afford to pay off the patent trolls, who do nothing with their patents... it's disgusting.
I would argue that "geeks" are not anti-intellectual as you position, but are increasingly against traditional (and often sorely outdated) methods of gaining knowledge.
I myself am against traditional education, and yet I am a very intelligent, knowledgeable person. I have gained that knowledge by learning on my own, and through others. In today's society you just don't have to go to a special building and pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to learn a lot of things.
Anyway, I'm not going to stay on my soapbox... suffice to say that traditional education is, to me, mostly obsolete or in need of a serious overhaul.
As I mentioned in another thread, a new system capable of running the latest browser will run you less than $200 (that's slightly less than 125 pounds sterling, my British friend) if you keep an eye on the bargains.
Out of pure curiousity i went and checked eBay UK and found this: http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/HP-PAVILLION-DESKTOP-PC-HP-KEYBOARD-HP-MOUSE-/140559336148?pt=UK_Computing_DesktopPCs&hash=item20b9fd42d4#ht_500wt_1156
So, there you go. £36 plus £15 for shipping and you have a system that is capable of running the modern browser of your choice. Web browsers don't require a whole lot of computing power; just more than they did 10 years ago.