This is going to be widely reported if this "acutally" happens and it is just going to be a detrament to the republican opponents. Because this does look like political terrorism, and who will they associate with this. I will tell you who the Democratic Party, and the DNC and Kerry will come out looking like terrorist that can't actually win on the issues. Instead they have to resort to gorrilla war-fare inorder to win, just like many of the dictatorships around the world. (That last part was just a statement to prove a point I don't actually think these people are associated with Kerry or the DNC, but it is going to be very bad for Kerry in the election if this actually does happen.)
The statement "Simply the fact that Windows Firewall can be turned off by another application is enough to tell me Microsoft has goofed again." is just plain incompedent. I love it when people that have never used Windows or haven't used it in a ton of years, start telling us Windows users what Microsoft goofed on. Well last time I checked, I was able to turn off Sygate and ZoneAlarm from other applications too. In addition I know of many programs that can start and stop the Linux firewall and the iptable chain too. Webadmin is one of them if I remember from the days when I use to play around with Linux.
This statement One small step forward for Microsoft, one giant leap backwards for mankind?, is the exact reason why very few people take the Open Source crowd very seriously. Microsoft is making a valent effort to fix security holes, that the OSS gang always complains about. And what is the response when Microsoft actually goes in and improves their product for the better, and closes some gaping holes? I will tell you one giant leap backwards for mankind, stop being so biased and get a life. This is the exact reason why I don't use Linux, because of this cocky holyer-than-thou attitude that they have. I say get off your high horse and congradulate Microsoft for fixing the hole, and gradulate your self for putting this kind of pressure on Microsoft to fix the holes.
Have you ever heard of a firewall or a virus scanner? Come on millions of people do this every week, and they don't have problems. Why does a supposedly advanced computer user (Linux Guy) have trouble understanding the basics of security, such as a firewall and a virus scanner.
I don't even install my e-mail client or plug in my ethernet cord before I have a virus scanner, and I always have my router blocking all incomming ports.
This guy just sounds like a moron, or he is just trying to spread FUD. I whish/. had a better story screening process.
Verizon fought and won against the DMCA, so it is not a be-all-end-all law. Like any law you can fight it and you can win. I am not saying it is perfect system, and there has been some transgressions of the original intent of the founders, but IMO it is still the beakon for freedoms of all kinds in the world.
If you think about it peoples of a lot of contries would love to be only limited by the DCMA and the Patriot Act (I brought that up because that seems to be the natural progression of people that think the way you do.) In many countries around the world you are not even allowed to question your government or their intentions or practices. France and Germany are good examples of this. By you sitting there in the comfort of you house questioning the DMCA which was created by the US, means that the system of free speach still does work.
You have to look at the larger picture many of these laws that are getting mentioned now, I have no doubt will get revoked in the future when a congress with enough gumption and fore-sight repeals them. Sure if you look at anything with a fine grain comb you will find many problems.
What constitues rasist remarks and hate messages? Does changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries constitue rasism or hate messages when it is posted on the internet? Does me saying French people smell here on slashdot constitue hate messages?
The EU is going to have a very tough time enfocing this since most people on the internet now use Google, and Google is a US based company. And since the first ammendment still exists in the US, and is not going to go away in the forseeable future, this kind of censoring will never happen. For your convience:
Amendment I (1791) 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 couldn't resist this flamebait. The US doesn't say that you cannot download music, copyright laws say that, it's just copyright laws are easier to enforce in the US and the RIAA is a US Corporation, so naturally they are going to sue in the US. So when the RIAA sues a person the US government doesn't have any involvement.
"Whatever happened to my decentralized net with no single point of failure?"
How ignorant can you be? The internet still worked even though some sites that are cached by Akamai, went down. I had no problem getting to slashdot, or google, or any other site today. I admit there were a couple that were off line, but that is just because the service at Akamai failed.
I am really getting tired of these article posters that want to comment on something but really know nothing about what they are commenting on. I guess he doesn't really understand that the decentrailized network that is failure proof only applies to the middle parts. Not the begining or ending point.
Really you actually changed from IE to Netscape? Was this pre IE4? Because as a web page designer I did just the oposite, because of how much NS4 bit the big one. It was horrible at rendering pages, it didn't support many of the moder tags or modern CSS at the time. But this was about 7 years ago, and I agree that IE needs an overhaul in it's CSS department, they should be taking the code for IEMac.
AOL doesn't run Netscape/Mozilla as their main browser, it is still IE. Well I am not saying that FireFox is worse or anything like that, I totally agree it is a better browser, but to tell IE to watch out, is just stupid. No matter how popular and better FireFox gets, it is always going to have a distribution problem compared to IE. I mean look at AOL, they spent how much money on Netscape/Mozilla and they still don't want to intigrate AOL with Mozilla. That is because under Windows Netscape/Mozilla is dog slow.
'Look out Internet Explorer... your days have been numbered for some time now, but Firefox 1.0 will surely leave you shaking on your already shaky foundations and standing in a small warm puddle'.
This is my favorite line, because it demonstrates how little open source people know about what the average joe wants. The average joe is never going to use FireFox unless some "nerdy" friend comes along and shows it to him/her. First of all you know how many people call the browsers "The Internet", in addition do you know how many people are just happy using what they have, because they may not care or know any better to use another browser.
The days may be numbered for IE in that there is a perceived better browser out there, but the days are not numbered for IE being used as the number one browser. Because most of the people using computers/internet today don't know much more than how to turn on their computer and use some familure applications. Also I love the guys that are using Linux and talking about how the days are numbered for IE.
My question is "How did you get IE installed on Linux?", since you seem to feel the days are numbered and you are running FireBird/Linux. Note I am not talking to the Windows guys that love FireBird, just the *nix guys that claim IE is numbered. It really shows how biased they are.
Actually the imprtant tenents of government are not to change. Because you don't want a living document that you have to abide by, where you never know where you stand.
Also you make it sound like mega companies are taking over the country and economy, but last time I check it was the small businesses that made up 3/4 of the US and are bring the economy back. It's not the megacompanies as you put it, because last time I checked their stock has stayed pretty stagnent.
I really think you have no faith in the people of the country. You are probably one of those left wing kooks we always see on the news talking about how big companies are keeping people down. The government is not the answer, if you see something going wrong, start a grass roots campiagn and protest the corporate statiums, stop watching MSNBC. You want to know something, the internet is the real grass roots campiagn, because look this article was able to be posted and nobody took it down. There was a corporation that came in and bought/. just to censor this article.
But I guess I am a person that see's the glass as half full instead half empty. I am never going to change your mind and you are never going to change mine so why don't we just stop here. The government is not the answer to anything but protecting the people militarily, and providing a monitary system. That is a tenent of Capitalizm, right? Right?
"They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP."
They have the ability to remove content they disagree with from THEIR website. However, if they contact another ISP about an issue on one of their sites, the ISP isn't forced to take it down, but they take it down because it is more financial responsable than getting into a leagle battle, over something that was posted by somebody the ISP doesn't really have any contact with.
See this is the main problem with most of the people on/. The original analogy of "I can remove content I disagree with at will from my lawn. Is that censorship, or is that my free speech?" is correct, because we are talking about if the ISP has the right to remove content from their lawn.
I have a question for you, so when all those aithists were protesting the 10 commandments on the court house in Georgia, where were the censorship people then? Huh? Who are these aithists to censor a ligitimate view of a certain set of people?
The government may have wrote laws about copyright, but what makes you think the ISP should spend time and money looking into a copyright matter when the copyright problem is between the original poster and the copyright owner. The ISP just takes it down until a solution can be worked out. Last time I checked we live in a free society (well most of us), where we have the choice to choose our products and the ISP's to host our information. Maybe it's time to go back to micro-economics.
Verizon wouldn't be fined, another company can sue Verizon for the information or monitary losses or what ever. But again only the government has the ability to fine somebody in a legal sense. How many speeding tickets have you got from you Cell Phone company?
I am really getting sick of all the pin heads out there that cannot tell the difference between the government and businesses. In addition, to those people that think the government to should step in on every little matter, it really shows your lack of faith in your fellow citizens to start a grass roots campaign.
Okay if the ISP's where following the rules of the government in the EU, then why did it come as a surprise that the content was taken down. You expect a company to invest time and money into looking into if the content is actually copyrighted. In addition the ISP in the US might have a little tighter process, than the counter part in the UK. Who knows but both ISP's did the right thing, if you don't like it or who ever doesn't like it you always have the option of setting up your own server, then you wouldn't have to worry.
First of all if you don't like it change it and stop b***hing about it on/. Second of all companies have the same rights as an entity that you have. That is what most people tend to forget. Maybe there are a ton of people out there that don't like you suppress your credit card number, or you bank account number. Or maybe they don't like that you lock your door at night or that you keep you car keys hidden away. Or maybe they just don't like the fact that you conceal what you eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Really come on, you have to understand the news today is for entertainment purposes more than actually reporting anything.
Surely there is another hosting company out there. I just think you are one of those lazy people that would rather crab about how a company doesn't want to host your content, instead of going out and finding one that will host it.
Re:This writer of the article is a journalistic ko
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 1
I think most people are confused, because what they mean by corporate censorship is actually copyright law. Merian-Webster cators to the masses, which doesn't always mean it is correct. Here is the correct definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship
In summary you just made an a** out of your self. Go look up the real meaning of censoring. They may be called censors, but who is behind those censors the FCC. The FCC is part of the government, and the censors, the people, are following FCC standards so they don't get finded. That is censor ship the limiting of content with a punishable offence. The censor for the air waves is for lude content and the punishable offence is a fine.
So please try to learn the english language and the meaning of words before you come on here and make a fool out of your self. Give me an instance of censorship where the government isn't envolved at all? You cannot because the government is the only entity that can censor content and people.
That was another circumstance where some group claimed to be censored. Where the Super Bowl or the NFL, Inc didn't want their business, so they didn't take their money. That is not censorship that is business.
"They can have stuff removed simply by hinting that they may sue the ISP"
Well that is not censorship, because the ISP can do what ever it wants with the information on their servers. It doesn't belong to you no matter how much you would like it to. I mean they could go through and delete every 4th file if they wanted to. Also they remove it to protect the company, they don't give a rats you know what about you or your content. So you can always move to another site to host the content or just host it your self.
Also if the information can be displayed on another site, such as your own, that is not censorship because you are not restricted from posting the content. Just because the ISP wants nothing to do with you or your content doesn't mean they are censoring you.
I want nothing to do with Britney Spears Music, but it doesn't mean I am censoring her. It just means she has to find other people willing to put up with the Music.
You are looking at the vernacular definition. The legal definition only applies to government because they have direct control to give out punishment. Where a corporation doesn't have any direct control over you, they cannot send you to jail for violating a corporate law.
Also here is the actual legal definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship
Look up theft in M-W and it is nothing like the legal definition of the word.
"But then again, it may actually be the legal definition of censor. See, the ISPs were following the law when taking the material down - or else they'd be charged under the DMCA. Thus, it *is* the government doing this, albeit indirectly."
No that is not censorship, because copyright laws are not laws to protect the government they are laws to protect entities. Censorship is in place to protect the government, and there wasn't going to be a fine from the government if these ISP's didn't take down their "copyrighted" material.
This is different from network censors which are following FCC guidlines. If they don't they get fined by the government as a punishment, that is censorship.
Re:This writer of the article is a journalistic ko
on
Testing ISP Censorship
·
· Score: 1
Here you go: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship
Slashdot Mirror
Yes there is a reason they call it the 9th Circus, because it's disissions are usually based more on feelings than law.
This is going to be widely reported if this "acutally" happens and it is just going to be a detrament to the republican opponents. Because this does look like political terrorism, and who will they associate with this. I will tell you who the Democratic Party, and the DNC and Kerry will come out looking like terrorist that can't actually win on the issues. Instead they have to resort to gorrilla war-fare inorder to win, just like many of the dictatorships around the world. (That last part was just a statement to prove a point I don't actually think these people are associated with Kerry or the DNC, but it is going to be very bad for Kerry in the election if this actually does happen.)
The statement "Simply the fact that Windows Firewall can be turned off by another application is enough to tell me Microsoft has goofed again." is just plain incompedent. I love it when people that have never used Windows or haven't used it in a ton of years, start telling us Windows users what Microsoft goofed on. Well last time I checked, I was able to turn off Sygate and ZoneAlarm from other applications too. In addition I know of many programs that can start and stop the Linux firewall and the iptable chain too. Webadmin is one of them if I remember from the days when I use to play around with Linux.
This statement One small step forward for Microsoft, one giant leap backwards for mankind?, is the exact reason why very few people take the Open Source crowd very seriously. Microsoft is making a valent effort to fix security holes, that the OSS gang always complains about. And what is the response when Microsoft actually goes in and improves their product for the better, and closes some gaping holes? I will tell you one giant leap backwards for mankind, stop being so biased and get a life. This is the exact reason why I don't use Linux, because of this cocky holyer-than-thou attitude that they have. I say get off your high horse and congradulate Microsoft for fixing the hole, and gradulate your self for putting this kind of pressure on Microsoft to fix the holes.
Isn't this a repost from earlier today?
Have you ever heard of a firewall or a virus scanner? Come on millions of people do this every week, and they don't have problems. Why does a supposedly advanced computer user (Linux Guy) have trouble understanding the basics of security, such as a firewall and a virus scanner.
/. had a better story screening process.
I don't even install my e-mail client or plug in my ethernet cord before I have a virus scanner, and I always have my router blocking all incomming ports.
This guy just sounds like a moron, or he is just trying to spread FUD. I whish
Verizon fought and won against the DMCA, so it is not a be-all-end-all law. Like any law you can fight it and you can win. I am not saying it is perfect system, and there has been some transgressions of the original intent of the founders, but IMO it is still the beakon for freedoms of all kinds in the world.
If you think about it peoples of a lot of contries would love to be only limited by the DCMA and the Patriot Act (I brought that up because that seems to be the natural progression of people that think the way you do.) In many countries around the world you are not even allowed to question your government or their intentions or practices. France and Germany are good examples of this. By you sitting there in the comfort of you house questioning the DMCA which was created by the US, means that the system of free speach still does work.
You have to look at the larger picture many of these laws that are getting mentioned now, I have no doubt will get revoked in the future when a congress with enough gumption and fore-sight repeals them. Sure if you look at anything with a fine grain comb you will find many problems.
What constitues rasist remarks and hate messages? Does changing the name of French Fries to Freedom Fries constitue rasism or hate messages when it is posted on the internet? Does me saying French people smell here on slashdot constitue hate messages?
The EU is going to have a very tough time enfocing this since most people on the internet now use Google, and Google is a US based company. And since the first ammendment still exists in the US, and is not going to go away in the forseeable future, this kind of censoring will never happen. For your convience:
Amendment I (1791) 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 couldn't resist this flamebait. The US doesn't say that you cannot download music, copyright laws say that, it's just copyright laws are easier to enforce in the US and the RIAA is a US Corporation, so naturally they are going to sue in the US. So when the RIAA sues a person the US government doesn't have any involvement.
"Whatever happened to my decentralized net with no single point of failure?"
How ignorant can you be? The internet still worked even though some sites that are cached by Akamai, went down. I had no problem getting to slashdot, or google, or any other site today. I admit there were a couple that were off line, but that is just because the service at Akamai failed.
I am really getting tired of these article posters that want to comment on something but really know nothing about what they are commenting on. I guess he doesn't really understand that the decentrailized network that is failure proof only applies to the middle parts. Not the begining or ending point.
Really you actually changed from IE to Netscape? Was this pre IE4? Because as a web page designer I did just the oposite, because of how much NS4 bit the big one. It was horrible at rendering pages, it didn't support many of the moder tags or modern CSS at the time. But this was about 7 years ago, and I agree that IE needs an overhaul in it's CSS department, they should be taking the code for IEMac.
AOL doesn't run Netscape/Mozilla as their main browser, it is still IE. Well I am not saying that FireFox is worse or anything like that, I totally agree it is a better browser, but to tell IE to watch out, is just stupid. No matter how popular and better FireFox gets, it is always going to have a distribution problem compared to IE. I mean look at AOL, they spent how much money on Netscape/Mozilla and they still don't want to intigrate AOL with Mozilla. That is because under Windows Netscape/Mozilla is dog slow.
'Look out Internet Explorer... your days have been numbered for some time now, but Firefox 1.0 will surely leave you shaking on your already shaky foundations and standing in a small warm puddle'.
This is my favorite line, because it demonstrates how little open source people know about what the average joe wants. The average joe is never going to use FireFox unless some "nerdy" friend comes along and shows it to him/her. First of all you know how many people call the browsers "The Internet", in addition do you know how many people are just happy using what they have, because they may not care or know any better to use another browser.
The days may be numbered for IE in that there is a perceived better browser out there, but the days are not numbered for IE being used as the number one browser. Because most of the people using computers/internet today don't know much more than how to turn on their computer and use some familure applications. Also I love the guys that are using Linux and talking about how the days are numbered for IE.
My question is "How did you get IE installed on Linux?", since you seem to feel the days are numbered and you are running FireBird/Linux. Note I am not talking to the Windows guys that love FireBird, just the *nix guys that claim IE is numbered. It really shows how biased they are.
Actually the imprtant tenents of government are not to change. Because you don't want a living document that you have to abide by, where you never know where you stand.
/. just to censor this article.
Also you make it sound like mega companies are taking over the country and economy, but last time I check it was the small businesses that made up 3/4 of the US and are bring the economy back. It's not the megacompanies as you put it, because last time I checked their stock has stayed pretty stagnent.
I really think you have no faith in the people of the country. You are probably one of those left wing kooks we always see on the news talking about how big companies are keeping people down. The government is not the answer, if you see something going wrong, start a grass roots campiagn and protest the corporate statiums, stop watching MSNBC. You want to know something, the internet is the real grass roots campiagn, because look this article was able to be posted and nobody took it down. There was a corporation that came in and bought
But I guess I am a person that see's the glass as half full instead half empty. I am never going to change your mind and you are never going to change mine so why don't we just stop here. The government is not the answer to anything but protecting the people militarily, and providing a monitary system. That is a tenent of Capitalizm, right? Right?
"They do appear to have the ability to have information they disagree with removed from a website, simply by making a bogus complaint to the ISP."
They have the ability to remove content they disagree with from THEIR website. However, if they contact another ISP about an issue on one of their sites, the ISP isn't forced to take it down, but they take it down because it is more financial responsable than getting into a leagle battle, over something that was posted by somebody the ISP doesn't really have any contact with.
See this is the main problem with most of the people on /. The original analogy of "I can remove content I disagree with at will from my lawn. Is that censorship, or is that my free speech?" is correct, because we are talking about if the ISP has the right to remove content from their lawn.
I have a question for you, so when all those aithists were protesting the 10 commandments on the court house in Georgia, where were the censorship people then? Huh? Who are these aithists to censor a ligitimate view of a certain set of people?
The government may have wrote laws about copyright, but what makes you think the ISP should spend time and money looking into a copyright matter when the copyright problem is between the original poster and the copyright owner. The ISP just takes it down until a solution can be worked out. Last time I checked we live in a free society (well most of us), where we have the choice to choose our products and the ISP's to host our information. Maybe it's time to go back to micro-economics.
Verizon wouldn't be fined, another company can sue Verizon for the information or monitary losses or what ever. But again only the government has the ability to fine somebody in a legal sense. How many speeding tickets have you got from you Cell Phone company?
I am really getting sick of all the pin heads out there that cannot tell the difference between the government and businesses. In addition, to those people that think the government to should step in on every little matter, it really shows your lack of faith in your fellow citizens to start a grass roots campaign.
Okay if the ISP's where following the rules of the government in the EU, then why did it come as a surprise that the content was taken down. You expect a company to invest time and money into looking into if the content is actually copyrighted. In addition the ISP in the US might have a little tighter process, than the counter part in the UK. Who knows but both ISP's did the right thing, if you don't like it or who ever doesn't like it you always have the option of setting up your own server, then you wouldn't have to worry.
First of all if you don't like it change it and stop b***hing about it on /. Second of all companies have the same rights as an entity that you have. That is what most people tend to forget. Maybe there are a ton of people out there that don't like you suppress your credit card number, or you bank account number. Or maybe they don't like that you lock your door at night or that you keep you car keys hidden away. Or maybe they just don't like the fact that you conceal what you eat for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
Really come on, you have to understand the news today is for entertainment purposes more than actually reporting anything.
Surely there is another hosting company out there. I just think you are one of those lazy people that would rather crab about how a company doesn't want to host your content, instead of going out and finding one that will host it.
I think most people are confused, because what they mean by corporate censorship is actually copyright law. Merian-Webster cators to the masses, which doesn't always mean it is correct. Here is the correct definition. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship
In summary you just made an a** out of your self. Go look up the real meaning of censoring. They may be called censors, but who is behind those censors the FCC. The FCC is part of the government, and the censors, the people, are following FCC standards so they don't get finded. That is censor ship the limiting of content with a punishable offence. The censor for the air waves is for lude content and the punishable offence is a fine.
So please try to learn the english language and the meaning of words before you come on here and make a fool out of your self. Give me an instance of censorship where the government isn't envolved at all? You cannot because the government is the only entity that can censor content and people.
That was another circumstance where some group claimed to be censored. Where the Super Bowl or the NFL, Inc didn't want their business, so they didn't take their money. That is not censorship that is business.
"They can have stuff removed simply by hinting that they may sue the ISP"
Well that is not censorship, because the ISP can do what ever it wants with the information on their servers. It doesn't belong to you no matter how much you would like it to. I mean they could go through and delete every 4th file if they wanted to. Also they remove it to protect the company, they don't give a rats you know what about you or your content. So you can always move to another site to host the content or just host it your self.
Also if the information can be displayed on another site, such as your own, that is not censorship because you are not restricted from posting the content. Just because the ISP wants nothing to do with you or your content doesn't mean they are censoring you.
I want nothing to do with Britney Spears Music, but it doesn't mean I am censoring her. It just means she has to find other people willing to put up with the Music.
You are looking at the vernacular definition. The legal definition only applies to government because they have direct control to give out punishment. Where a corporation doesn't have any direct control over you, they cannot send you to jail for violating a corporate law.
Also here is the actual legal definition http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship
Look up theft in M-W and it is nothing like the legal definition of the word.
"But then again, it may actually be the legal definition of censor. See, the ISPs were following the law when taking the material down - or else they'd be charged under the DMCA. Thus, it *is* the government doing this, albeit indirectly."
No that is not censorship, because copyright laws are not laws to protect the government they are laws to protect entities. Censorship is in place to protect the government, and there wasn't going to be a fine from the government if these ISP's didn't take down their "copyrighted" material.
This is different from network censors which are following FCC guidlines. If they don't they get fined by the government as a punishment, that is censorship.
Here you go: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Censorship