Egypt just turned off all Internet access
on
Openleaks Goes Live
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Egyptian authorities apparently pulled the backbone plugs. As a result of the Egyptians protesting, because the Tunisians protested, because of a Wikileaked document, from a US Embassy saying the truth - there was an old, fucked up dictatorship, that is no more. Egyptians have their work laid out for them.
tt's right in the constitution, saying something like "Freedom of expression is guaranteed, anonymity is not allowed." There is also a press law which guarantees the right of response to an accuser in the same media, so such accuser must be identified. The reason for this is to protect people against anonymous defamation, etc, to which there is no defense, arguing that freedom of expression comes with the responsibility to back up one's words. However, it creates its own problems. Anonymous tipoffs of crime for example are sometimes contested in court by the accused, cancelling the investigation and arrest. It's creating a huge problem for bloggers, making them responsible for comments on their blogs, and everyone operating any kind of Internet service.
All true. However having dozens of secured, separate places to submit content, makes it easier for the leakers, and the people who receive it, knowing that if they don't publish it, someone else may do it anyway, and they will just be held to account for hiding instead of publishing. Indeed being the first place to openly accept and publish leaked content has been very hard for Wikileaks, so the copycats are actually overdue compliments and protection in this case, I think.
I'm in Brazil, there are a ton of Internet laws being discussed on state and federal laws, some very confusing and completely contradictory. The only laws that ever passed, however, require cyber cafes to keep complete records of all clients for five years. Based on that law, several civil lawsuits have been launched against the cafe if it doesn't have data on the client sought, making it responsible for the original offender's actions, and requesting damages going into tens of thousands.
The "study" may be BS. But it does raise the issue of how to disagree with the law, disobey it, without being punished for it. You are essentially risking punishment for ignoring the law. It may be a small issue, it may be a stupid law, but if someone picks you out for punishment, you could be set up, screwed, and ruined big-time. Cheating on taxes, drinking a beer in the wrong place/time, smoking a joint, downloading copyrighted things, running a red light, all of these things could set you up as a target for someone who wants to make an example out of you or whatever. For example I refused to comply with a local law requiring me to check ID for every user that used a computer at the cybercafe. (No, not in the US). I just couldn't agree. However, eventually a user abused the law, and now I'm answering in their place in a defamation case, perhaps being forced to pay thousands in damages - alleging I allowed the defamation by not following the law. They too felt abused by their boss apparently, and went to a cybercafe to send some emails accusing the boss of corruption and a dozen four-letter word things. Well, it's a big crime here. Not checking the ID is nothing, but now I'm caught as a target in bigger issues.
So disagreeing with the law is legal, scoffing at the law may result in nothing much of the time, but it's actually perhaps best to consider better ways to protest the law, while checking your options in case you are required to show your compliance with the laws.
I wish them the best of luck in their effort of killing ants with a hammer. Meanwhile, there are about a zillion other methods in use, and another ten zillion being thought up. Be careful not to ruin your nice marble furniture while hammering at the ants.
So the balance of power the records will supply has to be equalized somehow.
We just have to throw enough chaff into the system to drown it in crap
Honestly if something like this were proposed and I actually thought the records on all officials would be kept and presented correctly, when investigations are requested by the public, I would vote for it. I think the public in general would have much less to hide than people in power.
It's not going to be just the police. If the data is there it will be available to civil suits. Things like showing your ex-spouse visits porn sites and is clearly not a suitable parent.
Fair game, so long as legit, verified data of the same kind is available on anyone and everyone upon judicial order, from the nerdy teenager all the way to everyone in the White House, DOJ, Wall St, Pentagon, your boss and his wife, etc. We'll see who has the most stuff to hide.
Only if you want DC-area bathrooms to be flooded with, er, wide-stanced Republican congressmen.
I'm no fan of Bush's criminal party, but neither party has a monopoly on wrongdoing or is composed of 100% clean-record public officials.
Investigate everyone and let the chips fall where they may.
It's a feature. They meant to make it easier to read. Now, is this an actual product or joke? You never know. I think it's really just meant as an autorun patch on your keyboard drivers.
Holy cow, I clicked "reply to this" and I got a textarea I can type in!
Horrible. Nothing to be confused about. No buggy weirdness. No nerdy pathetic design. What did they do, hire some interface designer? I'm going back to facecrooks.
All they need to do is create "citizen council groups" organized by zip code or something, put everyone inside one, set some default topics such as health and education or public representative responsiveness, and they're done.
Oh, but law enforcement is above the law, of course. You ever seen a cop get pulled over for speeding?
Right. So public vehicles must have GPS trackers with code analyzing abuses such as speed, slacking off, use for private purposes, etc. The public has a right to it.
The stockholders have the legitimate rights to inspect their corporate representatives. They need access to reliable data on abuse of power. Also, given that many of these executives hold vast power over matters of great public influence, public infrastructure, services, etc, such as the military, security, health care, education, telecommunications, and transportation, in many cases members of the public and law enforcement need evidence of criminal activity in case there is any. There is often suspicion or criminal activity and the need to investigate and collect evidence. just as anyone else.
If they want individual behavior data records to audit misbehaving people, let them produce it on themselves first and give the example. When we see a serious increase in the levels of sentencing, not just arrests, of public and corporate officials and law enforcement for pedophilia, involvement in drug trafficking, blackmailing, illegal espionage, corruption, and so on, then we'll discuss allowing it for the rest of the population.
I do understand the cops. There is a lot of crime, and there is data available to catch crime, without having to resort to infiltrating organized gangs and risking the life of an investigator. Access to that data that could save a lot of lives and abuse and trouble, but such data collection is prohibited under privacy laws. Now, they must understand the public position if they want data to be able to do their jobs better. Allowing data to be collected is a serious invasion of privacy, basically amounts to strongly reducing rights of privacy, secrecy and anonymity. And the data will certainly leak in lots of ways. So, if they want data on people, they have to give up data on themselves. There is also a lot of crime and abuse that happens within police, government, legal offices, government offices, and corporate offices. The public needs that investigated too. Data can be collected in those places too. Equal rights. Certified collection, storage and authenticity of behavior data on everyone, on all levels, accessible to everyone, on all levels, on equal condition, or no data for anybody. That included everyone. Lawyers, justices, policemen, security officials, corporate employees, executives, their families, dogs, everyone. If you have privacy, I have privacy, if you have data, I have data. If you can read my writing, my reading, and my mind, I can read your writing, your reading, and your mind. And we all want full system auditing rights, too.
There was no technical ability to monitor before, by government or by people or by random groups. Concrete walls, paper envelopes and quiet conversations were all reasonable guarantees of privacy by nature, there was no way to record them. Now everything can become data and be recorded and transmitted. The cost is going down and the abilities expanding. It will be done undercover, and sold on a black or gray market, legal or not, in dozens of ways. As we are all seeing. Universal monitoring capability is here, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. I believe there is no solution. Either the people monitor all their officials and powers-that-be, or the people become monitored one-way - legally or not.
Requiring warrants doesn't make conditions equal. Once data exists, it leaks, via legal, semi-legal, and extra-legal routes. There's no denying it happens. So if data exists on the public, data should exist on the officials. More so perhaps, as their positions require us to trust them for our basic rights to exist, but they don't need to trust us for their rights to exist. Records on citizens are usually used to prosecute criminals and/or abuse citizens rights. Records on public officials can be manipulated and forged to fake legitimacy. It'll be rare to have it leaked or released for evidence of abusive behavior. So the balance of power the records will supply has to be equalized somehow.
If records of my activities are recorded and available for investigation, and I have equal rights, those of all people should be too. Given that home users are directly linked to an ISP and all their activities can be directly monitored with a very high likelyhood of locating and monitoring the proper suspect in an investigation, they are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to others who can mix their activities with many other users in a large office or government division by hiding behind a corporate firewall, who can then respond to investigators with strong legal and technical protections as well. So all government offices and corporations should have their records kept by third parties as well, installed on equipment directly linked to their switches within their environments, and revealed to the public under FOIA and/or judicial order. In fact, for certain positions requiring high public confidence, such as public representatives, publicly traded companies, or groups managing public resources, connection of their own computers and that of their staff should be monitored and records kept for possible future breach of public trust investigations.
Slashdot Mirror
Egyptian authorities apparently pulled the backbone plugs. As a result of the Egyptians protesting, because the Tunisians protested, because of a Wikileaked document, from a US Embassy saying the truth - there was an old, fucked up dictatorship, that is no more. Egyptians have their work laid out for them.
tt's right in the constitution, saying something like "Freedom of expression is guaranteed, anonymity is not allowed." There is also a press law which guarantees the right of response to an accuser in the same media, so such accuser must be identified. The reason for this is to protect people against anonymous defamation, etc, to which there is no defense, arguing that freedom of expression comes with the responsibility to back up one's words. However, it creates its own problems. Anonymous tipoffs of crime for example are sometimes contested in court by the accused, cancelling the investigation and arrest. It's creating a huge problem for bloggers, making them responsible for comments on their blogs, and everyone operating any kind of Internet service.
The same is true for adults, or, if you may, human beings. Big surprise, I don't know why people insist on treating children as retards or something.
"Your IP address has been logged"
They just need to make a connection available a Tor hidden service.
People don't believe in the press anymore.
All true. However having dozens of secured, separate places to submit content, makes it easier for the leakers, and the people who receive it, knowing that if they don't publish it, someone else may do it anyway, and they will just be held to account for hiding instead of publishing. Indeed being the first place to openly accept and publish leaked content has been very hard for Wikileaks, so the copycats are actually overdue compliments and protection in this case, I think.
I'm in Brazil, there are a ton of Internet laws being discussed on state and federal laws, some very confusing and completely contradictory. The only laws that ever passed, however, require cyber cafes to keep complete records of all clients for five years. Based on that law, several civil lawsuits have been launched against the cafe if it doesn't have data on the client sought, making it responsible for the original offender's actions, and requesting damages going into tens of thousands.
The "study" may be BS. But it does raise the issue of how to disagree with the law, disobey it, without being punished for it. You are essentially risking punishment for ignoring the law. It may be a small issue, it may be a stupid law, but if someone picks you out for punishment, you could be set up, screwed, and ruined big-time. Cheating on taxes, drinking a beer in the wrong place/time, smoking a joint, downloading copyrighted things, running a red light, all of these things could set you up as a target for someone who wants to make an example out of you or whatever. For example I refused to comply with a local law requiring me to check ID for every user that used a computer at the cybercafe. (No, not in the US). I just couldn't agree. However, eventually a user abused the law, and now I'm answering in their place in a defamation case, perhaps being forced to pay thousands in damages - alleging I allowed the defamation by not following the law. They too felt abused by their boss apparently, and went to a cybercafe to send some emails accusing the boss of corruption and a dozen four-letter word things. Well, it's a big crime here. Not checking the ID is nothing, but now I'm caught as a target in bigger issues.
So disagreeing with the law is legal, scoffing at the law may result in nothing much of the time, but it's actually perhaps best to consider better ways to protest the law, while checking your options in case you are required to show your compliance with the laws.
I wish them the best of luck in their effort of killing ants with a hammer. Meanwhile, there are about a zillion other methods in use, and another ten zillion being thought up. Be careful not to ruin your nice marble furniture while hammering at the ants.
So the balance of power the records will supply has to be equalized somehow.
We just have to throw enough chaff into the system to drown it in crap
Honestly if something like this were proposed and I actually thought the records on all officials would be kept and presented correctly, when investigations are requested by the public, I would vote for it. I think the public in general would have much less to hide than people in power.
It's not going to be just the police. If the data is there it will be available to civil suits. Things like showing your ex-spouse visits porn sites and is clearly not a suitable parent.
Fair game, so long as legit, verified data of the same kind is available on anyone and everyone upon judicial order, from the nerdy teenager all the way to everyone in the White House, DOJ, Wall St, Pentagon, your boss and his wife, etc. We'll see who has the most stuff to hide.
http://www.open-mesh.com/
closest thing I've found so far.
Only if you want DC-area bathrooms to be flooded with, er, wide-stanced Republican congressmen.
I'm no fan of Bush's criminal party, but neither party has a monopoly on wrongdoing or is composed of 100% clean-record public officials. Investigate everyone and let the chips fall where they may.
It's sideways.
It's a feature. They meant to make it easier to read. Now, is this an actual product or joke? You never know. I think it's really just meant as an autorun patch on your keyboard drivers.
No. I don't like smiling.
Holy cow, I clicked "reply to this" and I got a textarea I can type in!
Horrible. Nothing to be confused about. No buggy weirdness. No nerdy pathetic design. What did they do, hire some interface designer? I'm going back to facecrooks.
All they need to do is create "citizen council groups" organized by zip code or something, put everyone inside one, set some default topics such as health and education or public representative responsiveness, and they're done.
Oh, but law enforcement is above the law, of course. You ever seen a cop get pulled over for speeding?
Right. So public vehicles must have GPS trackers with code analyzing abuses such as speed, slacking off, use for private purposes, etc. The public has a right to it.
The stockholders have the legitimate rights to inspect their corporate representatives. They need access to reliable data on abuse of power. Also, given that many of these executives hold vast power over matters of great public influence, public infrastructure, services, etc, such as the military, security, health care, education, telecommunications, and transportation, in many cases members of the public and law enforcement need evidence of criminal activity in case there is any. There is often suspicion or criminal activity and the need to investigate and collect evidence. just as anyone else.
If they want individual behavior data records to audit misbehaving people, let them produce it on themselves first and give the example. When we see a serious increase in the levels of sentencing, not just arrests, of public and corporate officials and law enforcement for pedophilia, involvement in drug trafficking, blackmailing, illegal espionage, corruption, and so on, then we'll discuss allowing it for the rest of the population.
I do understand the cops. There is a lot of crime, and there is data available to catch crime, without having to resort to infiltrating organized gangs and risking the life of an investigator. Access to that data that could save a lot of lives and abuse and trouble, but such data collection is prohibited under privacy laws. Now, they must understand the public position if they want data to be able to do their jobs better. Allowing data to be collected is a serious invasion of privacy, basically amounts to strongly reducing rights of privacy, secrecy and anonymity. And the data will certainly leak in lots of ways. So, if they want data on people, they have to give up data on themselves. There is also a lot of crime and abuse that happens within police, government, legal offices, government offices, and corporate offices. The public needs that investigated too. Data can be collected in those places too. Equal rights. Certified collection, storage and authenticity of behavior data on everyone, on all levels, accessible to everyone, on all levels, on equal condition, or no data for anybody. That included everyone. Lawyers, justices, policemen, security officials, corporate employees, executives, their families, dogs, everyone. If you have privacy, I have privacy, if you have data, I have data. If you can read my writing, my reading, and my mind, I can read your writing, your reading, and your mind. And we all want full system auditing rights, too.
There was no technical ability to monitor before, by government or by people or by random groups. Concrete walls, paper envelopes and quiet conversations were all reasonable guarantees of privacy by nature, there was no way to record them. Now everything can become data and be recorded and transmitted. The cost is going down and the abilities expanding. It will be done undercover, and sold on a black or gray market, legal or not, in dozens of ways. As we are all seeing. Universal monitoring capability is here, there is no putting the genie back in the bottle. I believe there is no solution. Either the people monitor all their officials and powers-that-be, or the people become monitored one-way - legally or not.
Requiring warrants doesn't make conditions equal. Once data exists, it leaks, via legal, semi-legal, and extra-legal routes. There's no denying it happens. So if data exists on the public, data should exist on the officials. More so perhaps, as their positions require us to trust them for our basic rights to exist, but they don't need to trust us for their rights to exist. Records on citizens are usually used to prosecute criminals and/or abuse citizens rights. Records on public officials can be manipulated and forged to fake legitimacy. It'll be rare to have it leaked or released for evidence of abusive behavior. So the balance of power the records will supply has to be equalized somehow.
Just link the monitoring of the public to the monitoring of the government.
The public has a right to have evidence of crime collected and available for investigation in Washington.
If records of my activities are recorded and available for investigation, and I have equal rights, those of all people should be too. Given that home users are directly linked to an ISP and all their activities can be directly monitored with a very high likelyhood of locating and monitoring the proper suspect in an investigation, they are at a distinct disadvantage when compared to others who can mix their activities with many other users in a large office or government division by hiding behind a corporate firewall, who can then respond to investigators with strong legal and technical protections as well. So all government offices and corporations should have their records kept by third parties as well, installed on equipment directly linked to their switches within their environments, and revealed to the public under FOIA and/or judicial order. In fact, for certain positions requiring high public confidence, such as public representatives, publicly traded companies, or groups managing public resources, connection of their own computers and that of their staff should be monitored and records kept for possible future breach of public trust investigations.