I agree with your assessment of how it will be sold.
I also agreed with Lessig that there will likely be an E-9/11 that will result in a sort of "E-Patriot Act."
However, I wont be one who "does nothing," and I think there are a lot of people who would be motivated to do something to stop such a thing.
I totally understand where you're coming from as it's the exact type of apathy that I was referring to in my parent post, and in the past I was pretty much as much a part of that as anyone else, but what I am saying is that I am not willing to sit back and be that way with this particular issue - and I am hoping that there are a lot of others who wont either.
I know one particular type of situation where having polaroid stle instant snaps is perferable to a lot of people over digital cameras.
That particular situation is when you have an event, item, or situation which you wish to have pictures of, but which is way too sensitive to allow to pictures to get out or get on the internet - one such situation would be nude or explicit photos of taken by someone you don't trust enough to leave with negatives or a digital photograph...
Even since digital cameras became commonplace I thought that it was homemade porn snaps that was keeping polaroid's instant camera division afloat actually.
So my question is, what is everyone prepared to do to stop this sort of thing should people like this asshat start to get what they want?
I think if any of these people or organizations that want filtering (or watever this guy proposes as being "guardrails") or a "drivers license"real ID type thing required to use the internet (which is something else I see coming) can get their wish for any kind of abridgement of our freedom online in America then that's pretty much the game, for the reason that: 1. The majority of Americans seem to have become too complacently comfortable to be angry enough with their government to do things like strike en masse or force change when the government gets so out of line that it's protecting the interests of corporations over citizens - They seem to be able to still force the government to negotiate in places like France - kind of sad with our history. 2. While the internet is certainly global and decentralized to a degree, root DNS control and related issues, as well as the fact that so much of the high tech infrastructure and corporations are based in the US makes it a little more problematic for the entire world should the US govt decide to unilaterally impose their will.
I am not saying there wouldn't be any hope and it would completely ruin the internet in every way worldwide, but that certainly would almost be the case IMO - with a lot of the traditionally "free" western "democracies" sliding deeper into corporatism/fascism by the day and the heavily controlled corporate media the internet really does seem to be the last bastion of freedom, free information and communication and source of worldwide unfiltered news. I think it's so important, and those in power who don't have the best interest of the people at heart are keely aware of this.
So, my question is - what can we do, and what are you willing to do if this self-entitled asshole and others like him start getting what they want?
Bullshit - They didn't have a "hooker" or "buy sex here" section.
What they had is an "Erotic Services" section, which doesn't necessarily mean prostitution. I can see the replies right now asking me "oh, so then what is an erotic service if not prostitution?" It would be things like Tantric workshops, sensual massage, and many other things that aren't just code for prostitution. Certainly sensual massage can be, but isn't always.
You cannot just say that all of these ads are fronts for hookers, because they aren't.
IMO prostitution should be legal anyways, it's safer for everyone involved in every way.
I have been getting my ass beaten severely on a practically daily basis when walking through north Philly listing to hip hop on my ipod, singing along as loudly as I can!
Now I understand, it's because I was saying that word and I'm white!!!
Yeah...I can agree that a harrassment charge might have been appropriate, but I think what was happening is that people were trying to misuse the law to punish her for that girl's suicide - which I think is really wrong, for so many reasons, one of the main ones being the precedents it sets. It was awful that that girl killed herself, but people are responsible for their own actions and as awful and cruel as that woman was, people are cruel everyone, and this girl, unfortunately, had some other serious issues.
All I seem to see lately is freedom on the internet under sttack from all sides, whether we're discussing net neutrality and the corporate fears about not being able to monetize enough things online, or were talking about laws like the ones in Germany that criminalize possession of crucial IT software tools because they can be misued, or we're talking about government spying, or filtering or the constant drumbeat of fear pounded by the media about how "evil hackers are going to shut down the power grid and steal your ID."
I am not saying that there aren't concerns about those issues and security online - but it's no different than anything else - if you take precautions you'll be fine - government shouldn't be the 'net nanny' or 'web police," - power grids shouldn't be accessable on the internet - make a closed network - i mean, there are several ways to minimize threats...And what I see is all of these issues being used to obtain the real goal of these beaurocrats and fascists - and that is control...total control.
You know, reading this stuff just really pisses me off.
It's just like that Lori Drew case, This case seems to be yet another attempt at turning corporate policies into defacto laws - it's an element of encroaching corporatism (aka fascism); except I don't think this guy is a real piece of shit; where Lori Drew certainly seems to be, but I still think she never should have been charged - certainly violating a website's TOS is NOT a crime.
I think people need to really fight against these cases and precedents because the selective abuse of vaguely written overly broad laws like this for political purposes is starting to get out of control...And there is a small part of me that thinks somebody needs to show the "Shelby Ohio Wastewaste Treatment Plant" what hacking really is; so that they fucking KNOW they've been hacked and will never make the mistake of confusing someone doing what a fairly large percentage of employees do all over the world with HACKING again......
Why don't I think the US or Aussie government (especially the Aussies, given their recent track record on civil liberties and disregarding privacy concerns of their citizens) would give away an "unbreakable" form of crypto?
My feeling is that they must have a backdoor into this, and that makes me suspicious.
It seems to me it might be more like "Here, use this, this is great encryption, nobody can crack it." Well, it may be unbreakable - but what if they have a master key or something?
Maybe so; it was a quick idea; but I'm assuming you may have missed the part about distributing the assets of the company properly (proportionally) among the shareholders and employees who are clean of any taint from such a scandal....When it comes to a company as large as Merck I am guessing that for many people they would never have to work again.
I agree that innocent people shouldn't be punished - and there is also the effect that this would have on R&D of new drugs (which would likely be any pharma company's main claim of of defense, that any actions or sanctions against them would hurt our chances of finding a cure for caner, etc)..But I doubt that is the case.
I guess I am just tired of corporate abuse - actualy t hink abuse isn;t strong enough of a world - with a lot of these large corporations some of the things they do could rightfully be called 'treason against humanity,' or something.
This sort of thing reminds me of the way the company in "Michael Clayton" behaves, (great film BTW).
I wiah that sort of thing was a fantasy and that it could be said that such things are exaggerations and never happen - but when it come to millions or billions of dollars at stake these multinational companies are sometimes willing to do extremely unethical things, including murder - we certainly have seen cases of attempts to cover up negligence where numerous people have been killed as a result of faulty products.
Even if Merck didn't actually have anybody killed here, and even if they claim that isn't what they meant by "neutralize," - destroying someone's life and credibility because they are trying to tell the world the truth about what their research has shown is just about as bad.
As corporations and governments are becoming more intertwined I expect we'll see more of this.
It seems like sociopaths tend to make it far in corporate society - something about being able to do what it takes to rise to that level in the cutthroat world of business seems to fit the the sociopathic personality.
Any company that gets caught doing this sort of thing, even if it's found out after the fact should be destroyed - it's assets should be divided properly among shareholders and employees who are clean of any taint from such a scandal....
So that the police get the evidence before the press and can cover up and prepare spin before the masses see it (if they ever see it)?
I thought they had some "it's illegal to video police" bullshit "anti-terror" law over there anyway - what, you upload it and they come and arrest you on trumped up terror charges?
You are aware that the actual report didn't come from Alex Jones right?
I'll admit that his style can be off-putting and conspiracy-centric - but he is an honest guy who is trying to expose a lot of corruption, and who really does give a fuck about freedom, the constitution, and America. I will take reporters like him any day over compromised corporate propagandists.
He does sometimes make mistakes, or over speculate; and the conclusions he draws on some things may be different than what you or I may come to - but in general when it comes to the facts contained in his reporting he takes it seriously and if he fucks up he prints retractions.
He has broken a lot of important stories that may not have come out any other way.
For this particular story (as far as the leaked pdf is concerned), it's my understanding that cryptome.org had it first.
I submitted this two days ago, and I am curious as to why it didn't go anywhere where I did - I am not complaining, I am just wondering if I missed something in the submission process?
I've been posting and moderating here for about 3 years, but this was the first story I have submitted - so I was hoping to see it read and commented on.
Is what makes it to the front page based entirely on the firehose?
One other thing that wasn't mentioned in this submitters summary that I thought was telling about how law enforcement views people who are techies and are activists is that they seem to call "hacktivism" a terrorist tactic.
I thought everything he was saying on this issue sounded too good to be true and expected him to possibly pull something like this, but given his numerous statements about Bush's use of these sort of tactics I think he should be made to suffer in the same manner as Bush sr. was made to suffer with his "no new taxes" statement.
The guy's actions are nothing like what comes out of his mouth - this does not portend freedom, limited excutive power, or any of the other stuff along those lines which he promised.
He needs a new logo. Instead of "Obama, change we can believe in," it should be "Obama, the Janus president."
I wouldn't call him a social conservative at all, I think that's inaccurate.
From what I know of his platform, he doesn't believe it's the government's place to decide these things, but if it IS to be decided anywhere in government, it certainly should not be at the Federal level. He believes in state's rights - that doesn't mean he is a bigot or or a "social conservative."
What his personal beliefs are about gay marriage I don't know, but I think he'd be the first to tell you that whatever ones personal beliefs are on personal social issues shouldn't affect how they legislate for their constituency.
What happened in Iraq and what happened to Saddam was wrong and puts he US on that same level as many of those countries we have always criticized - torture, kangaroo courts are par for the course for dictators and banana republics and America should be so much better than this.
- and this kind of shit? Seriously! Wow..that's really freedom in action, that's really going to matter...I am sure that there are a lot of professional soldiers who think this shit is beneath everything they've put on the line.
How can our country be an example of anything? Our people have been dumbed down and are pacified by television and mindless shallow bullshit, consumerism, etc. At least the French still take to the street and actually make their government change course when they do something that is an offense to the people.
No matter where you discuss this sort of opinion, (and Slashdot is much better than most places as far as the intelligence of the community) there will always be a group of people who say some ignorant shit like "you hate America," or something to that effect.
I think if people hate America they are loving all of this kind of stuff that has happened in the past 9 years - they are loving seeing this country lose all credibility and any moral high ground the country may have once had.
So he basically got fired for reporting on something, I mean, everyone knows that film was leaked, it's been in the news daily....
He didn't pirate the movie.
He didn't really encourage others to do so, or tell them where to find it (not like you need to be told anyway) - unless you consider a good review an encouragement
He seemed to take a dim view of piracy in the article IIRC - other than mentioning how easy it was to find the film.
He gave the film what amounts to a rave review.
I agree that he should have known, seeing as who he worked for, that this may have been a controversial move. He probably realized that, but didn't think he'd get fired.
Now I am wondering if this is some kind of publicity stunt where they're trying to say two different things:
One, Wolverine is great, two, we don't tolerate piracy, it can cost you...
I guess if we see the guy get hired back, or find out that he wasn't really fired that may indicate that this was a manipulation of the media.
Thanks for posting this again; I think the spirit contained within that letter is something that may be helpful and inspiring for the person facing this current predicament.
I love reading that Bluejeanscable letter..I've read it before, but reading it again once more just fills me with glee....To see a corporation engaging in abuse of the legal system against the small guy, and to see the fuck up and have chosen THE WRONG GUY to fuck with, and to enjoy the letter point by point as he shuts down their weak, frivolous, unethical and possibly fraudulent argument then deliver the coup-de-grace, (how the bluejeans cable guy has significant experience litigating and is just itching for them to try to proceed)...
In this day and age it just fills me with joy...I only wish every abuse of the legal system could be met with such a challenge...
This perfectly illustrates one of the unspoken rules of Slashdot culture:
*If the sole point of your post is to either complain, call a moderation unfair, or ask for an explanation about a moderation, be prepared for your post to be modded in exactly the same way.*
It's really a wonderful cultural practice, and is preparing interworldnettubez denizens everywhere for what they can expect when asking similar questions of real world "moderators" like cops and politicians.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree with your assessment of how it will be sold.
I also agreed with Lessig that there will likely be an E-9/11 that will result in a sort of "E-Patriot Act."
However, I wont be one who "does nothing," and I think there are a lot of people who would be motivated to do something to stop such a thing.
I totally understand where you're coming from as it's the exact type of apathy that I was referring to in my parent post, and in the past I was pretty much as much a part of that as anyone else, but what I am saying is that I am not willing to sit back and be that way with this particular issue - and I am hoping that there are a lot of others who wont either.
I know one particular type of situation where having polaroid stle instant snaps is perferable to a lot of people over digital cameras.
That particular situation is when you have an event, item, or situation which you wish to have pictures of, but which is way too sensitive to allow to pictures to get out or get on the internet - one such situation would be nude or explicit photos of taken by someone you don't trust enough to leave with negatives or a digital photograph...
Even since digital cameras became commonplace I thought that it was homemade porn snaps that was keeping polaroid's instant camera division afloat actually.
So my question is, what is everyone prepared to do to stop this sort of thing should people like this asshat start to get what they want?
I think if any of these people or organizations that want filtering (or watever this guy proposes as being "guardrails") or a "drivers license"real ID type thing required to use the internet (which is something else I see coming) can get their wish for any kind of abridgement of our freedom online in America then that's pretty much the game, for the reason that:
1. The majority of Americans seem to have become too complacently comfortable to be angry enough with their government to do things like strike en masse or force change when the government gets so out of line that it's protecting the interests of corporations over citizens - They seem to be able to still force the government to negotiate in places like France - kind of sad with our history.
2. While the internet is certainly global and decentralized to a degree, root DNS control and related issues, as well as the fact that so much of the high tech infrastructure and corporations are based in the US makes it a little more problematic for the entire world should the US govt decide to unilaterally impose their will.
I am not saying there wouldn't be any hope and it would completely ruin the internet in every way worldwide, but that certainly would almost be the case IMO - with a lot of the traditionally "free" western "democracies" sliding deeper into corporatism/fascism by the day and the heavily controlled corporate media the internet really does seem to be the last bastion of freedom, free information and communication and source of worldwide unfiltered news. I think it's so important, and those in power who don't have the best interest of the people at heart are keely aware of this.
So, my question is - what can we do, and what are you willing to do if this self-entitled asshole and others like him start getting what they want?
I know I am willing to do whatever it takes.
Sounds like good news for Red Bull Cola US Sales!
Yes, because we Americans, we love us some Cocaine!!
I guarantee it though, that that stuff will sell better in the US because of this story.
Command: "give my laptop back, you fascist fucks."
Prompt Command: "give my laptop back RIGHT FUCKING NOW you fascist fucks!"
Bullshit - They didn't have a "hooker" or "buy sex here" section.
What they had is an "Erotic Services" section, which doesn't necessarily mean prostitution. I can see the replies right now asking me "oh, so then what is an erotic service if not prostitution?" It would be things like Tantric workshops, sensual massage, and many other things that aren't just code for prostitution. Certainly sensual massage can be, but isn't always.
You cannot just say that all of these ads are fronts for hookers, because they aren't.
IMO prostitution should be legal anyways, it's safer for everyone involved in every way.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
You have solved me biggest day to day issue!
I have been getting my ass beaten severely on a practically daily basis when walking through north Philly listing to hip hop on my ipod, singing along as loudly as I can!
Now I understand, it's because I was saying that word and I'm white!!!
The solution is clear.
Now, if I can only find enough shoe polish....
I heard Sarkozy really likes "things blowing in his face."
(if by "things" you mean dudes).
This act certainly would seem to confirm that.
Yeah...I can agree that a harrassment charge might have been appropriate, but I think what was happening is that people were trying to misuse the law to punish her for that girl's suicide - which I think is really wrong, for so many reasons, one of the main ones being the precedents it sets. It was awful that that girl killed herself, but people are responsible for their own actions and as awful and cruel as that woman was, people are cruel everyone, and this girl, unfortunately, had some other serious issues.
All I seem to see lately is freedom on the internet under sttack from all sides, whether we're discussing net neutrality and the corporate fears about not being able to monetize enough things online, or were talking about laws like the ones in Germany that criminalize possession of crucial IT software tools because they can be misued, or we're talking about government spying, or filtering or the constant drumbeat of fear pounded by the media about how "evil hackers are going to shut down the power grid and steal your ID."
I am not saying that there aren't concerns about those issues and security online - but it's no different than anything else - if you take precautions you'll be fine - government shouldn't be the 'net nanny' or 'web police," - power grids shouldn't be accessable on the internet - make a closed network - i mean, there are several ways to minimize threats...And what I see is all of these issues being used to obtain the real goal of these beaurocrats and fascists - and that is control...total control.
You know, reading this stuff just really pisses me off.
It's just like that Lori Drew case, This case seems to be yet another attempt at turning corporate policies into defacto laws - it's an element of encroaching corporatism (aka fascism); except I don't think this guy is a real piece of shit; where Lori Drew certainly seems to be, but I still think she never should have been charged - certainly violating a website's TOS is NOT a crime.
I think people need to really fight against these cases and precedents because the selective abuse of vaguely written overly broad laws like this for political purposes is starting to get out of control ...And there is a small part of me that thinks somebody needs to show the "Shelby Ohio Wastewaste Treatment Plant" what hacking really is; so that they fucking KNOW they've been hacked and will never make the mistake of confusing someone doing what a fairly large percentage of employees do all over the world with HACKING again......
Point taken; my bad.
Guess that will teach me to post without giving TFA a proper read.
Thanks Srmalloy - learning about Russian "Mat" was the most interesting thing I read today while avoiding work.
With my newfound skill, I am sure you'll understand when I say 'Yob tvoyu mat' that it is in the spirit of friendship.
Why don't I think the US or Aussie government (especially the Aussies, given their recent track record on civil liberties and disregarding privacy concerns of their citizens) would give away an "unbreakable" form of crypto?
My feeling is that they must have a backdoor into this, and that makes me suspicious.
It seems to me it might be more like "Here, use this, this is great encryption, nobody can crack it." Well, it may be unbreakable - but what if they have a master key or something?
11011000 11111011 11010101
10101010 11000000 10101010
11010111 11111001 00001100
11101111 !!!!!
Maybe so; it was a quick idea; but I'm assuming you may have missed the part about distributing the assets of the company properly (proportionally) among the shareholders and employees who are clean of any taint from such a scandal ....When it comes to a company as large as Merck I am guessing that for many people they would never have to work again.
I agree that innocent people shouldn't be punished - and there is also the effect that this would have on R&D of new drugs (which would likely be any pharma company's main claim of of defense, that any actions or sanctions against them would hurt our chances of finding a cure for caner, etc)..But I doubt that is the case.
I guess I am just tired of corporate abuse - actualy t hink abuse isn;t strong enough of a world - with a lot of these large corporations some of the things they do could rightfully be called 'treason against humanity,' or something.
This sort of thing reminds me of the way the company in "Michael Clayton" behaves, (great film BTW).
I wiah that sort of thing was a fantasy and that it could be said that such things are exaggerations and never happen - but when it come to millions or billions of dollars at stake these multinational companies are sometimes willing to do extremely unethical things, including murder - we certainly have seen cases of attempts to cover up negligence where numerous people have been killed as a result of faulty products.
Even if Merck didn't actually have anybody killed here, and even if they claim that isn't what they meant by "neutralize," - destroying someone's life and credibility because they are trying to tell the world the truth about what their research has shown is just about as bad.
As corporations and governments are becoming more intertwined I expect we'll see more of this.
It seems like sociopaths tend to make it far in corporate society - something about being able to do what it takes to rise to that level in the cutthroat world of business seems to fit the the sociopathic personality.
Any company that gets caught doing this sort of thing, even if it's found out after the fact should be destroyed - it's assets should be divided properly among shareholders and employees who are clean of any taint from such a scandal....
So that the police get the evidence before the press and can cover up and prepare spin before the masses see it (if they ever see it)?
I thought they had some "it's illegal to video police" bullshit "anti-terror" law over there anyway - what, you upload it and they come and arrest you on trumped up terror charges?
You are aware that the actual report didn't come from Alex Jones right?
I'll admit that his style can be off-putting and conspiracy-centric - but he is an honest guy who is trying to expose a lot of corruption, and who really does give a fuck about freedom, the constitution, and America. I will take reporters like him any day over compromised corporate propagandists.
He does sometimes make mistakes, or over speculate; and the conclusions he draws on some things may be different than what you or I may come to - but in general when it comes to the facts contained in his reporting he takes it seriously and if he fucks up he prints retractions.
He has broken a lot of important stories that may not have come out any other way.
For this particular story (as far as the leaked pdf is concerned), it's my understanding that cryptome.org had it first.
I am glad to see this story here.
I submitted this two days ago, and I am curious as to why it didn't go anywhere where I did - I am not complaining, I am just wondering if I missed something in the submission process?
I've been posting and moderating here for about 3 years, but this was the first story I have submitted - so I was hoping to see it read and commented on.
http://slashdot.org/~moxley/submissions
Is what makes it to the front page based entirely on the firehose?
One other thing that wasn't mentioned in this submitters summary that I thought was telling about how law enforcement views people who are techies and are activists is that they seem to call "hacktivism" a terrorist tactic.
I thought everything he was saying on this issue sounded too good to be true and expected him to possibly pull something like this, but given his numerous statements about Bush's use of these sort of tactics I think he should be made to suffer in the same manner as Bush sr. was made to suffer with his "no new taxes" statement.
The guy's actions are nothing like what comes out of his mouth - this does not portend freedom, limited excutive power, or any of the other stuff along those lines which he promised.
He needs a new logo. Instead of "Obama, change we can believe in," it should be "Obama, the Janus president."
I wouldn't call him a social conservative at all, I think that's inaccurate.
From what I know of his platform, he doesn't believe it's the government's place to decide these things, but if it IS to be decided anywhere in government, it certainly should not be at the Federal level. He believes in state's rights - that doesn't mean he is a bigot or or a "social conservative."
What his personal beliefs are about gay marriage I don't know, but I think he'd be the first to tell you that whatever ones personal beliefs are on personal social issues shouldn't affect how they legislate for their constituency.
What happened in Iraq and what happened to Saddam was wrong and puts he US on that same level as many of those countries we have always criticized - torture, kangaroo courts are par for the course for dictators and banana republics and America should be so much better than this.
- and this kind of shit? Seriously! Wow..that's really freedom in action, that's really going to matter...I am sure that there are a lot of professional soldiers who think this shit is beneath everything they've put on the line.
How can our country be an example of anything? Our people have been dumbed down and are pacified by television and mindless shallow bullshit, consumerism, etc. At least the French still take to the street and actually make their government change course when they do something that is an offense to the people.
No matter where you discuss this sort of opinion, (and Slashdot is much better than most places as far as the intelligence of the community) there will always be a group of people who say some ignorant shit like "you hate America," or something to that effect.
I think if people hate America they are loving all of this kind of stuff that has happened in the past 9 years - they are loving seeing this country lose all credibility and any moral high ground the country may have once had.
It's just sad and pathetic..
So he basically got fired for reporting on something, I mean, everyone knows that film was leaked, it's been in the news daily....
He didn't pirate the movie.
He didn't really encourage others to do so, or tell them where to find it (not like you need to be told anyway) - unless you consider a good review an encouragement
He seemed to take a dim view of piracy in the article IIRC - other than mentioning how easy it was to find the film.
He gave the film what amounts to a rave review.
I agree that he should have known, seeing as who he worked for, that this may have been a controversial move. He probably realized that, but didn't think he'd get fired.
Now I am wondering if this is some kind of publicity stunt where they're trying to say two different things:
One, Wolverine is great, two, we don't tolerate piracy, it can cost you...
I guess if we see the guy get hired back, or find out that he wasn't really fired that may indicate that this was a manipulation of the media.
Thanks for posting this again; I think the spirit contained within that letter is something that may be helpful and inspiring for the person facing this current predicament.
I love reading that Bluejeanscable letter..I've read it before, but reading it again once more just fills me with glee....To see a corporation engaging in abuse of the legal system against the small guy, and to see the fuck up and have chosen THE WRONG GUY to fuck with, and to enjoy the letter point by point as he shuts down their weak, frivolous, unethical and possibly fraudulent argument then deliver the coup-de-grace, (how the bluejeans cable guy has significant experience litigating and is just itching for them to try to proceed)...
In this day and age it just fills me with joy...I only wish every abuse of the legal system could be met with such a challenge...
This perfectly illustrates one of the unspoken rules of Slashdot culture:
*If the sole point of your post is to either complain, call a moderation unfair, or ask for an explanation about a moderation, be prepared for your post to be modded in exactly the same way.*
It's really a wonderful cultural practice, and is preparing interworldnettubez denizens everywhere for what they can expect when asking similar questions of real world "moderators" like cops and politicians.
Let's all keep up the good work!