Active Users:466 Time:26/11/2024 04:47:45 AM
Re: Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable. DomA Send a noteboard - 19/01/2012 10:39:40 PM

Again I am reminded of Wikileaks obtaining Pentagon lists of Al Qaeda informants in Pakistan, which they then posted on their site.

i don't know why you keep trying to bring this back to issues of national security like a broken record. It's apples and oranges. Those new laws are not even concerned with shutting down websites that leaks state secrets. You're the only one who misinterpret them this way. The media in and out ofyour country are not even mentionning any national security angle - its laws catering to demands made by Hollywood and the veideogame industry.
Yeah, existing civil law worked SO well then. :rolleyes: Personally, giving the government authority to block Wikileaks in the wake of something like that seems reasonable to me; it is just too bad they could not block it globally.

The issue is primarly one of extradition, not of not having a legal framework already in place to charge Assange criminally in a US court..

Shutting down Wikileaks was useless, hundred of sites would have picked their stuff up as soon as it was done. It's not because the US government could't shut it down.

Yes, the problematic nature of extradition is why the new laws would grant the power to shut down access to foreign piracy sites, because extradicting their operators is often difficult or impossible. If the feds had shut down Wikileaks and other sites redistributed the posted data they could be shut down just as easily. Though, correct me if I am wrong, but the new laws would grant any authority to shut down those whose registry is in the US anyway, only those with foreign registry. Seems like there is a fairly simple built in workaround.



We had this one hour radio show discussing the topic two days ago, with guest American legal experts on it (plus one specialist of American politics). They specifically discussed the angle of "national security" as the host brought it up (he asked specifically if the US government could invoke these laws to censor sites like Wikileaks last year, if it provided the US with new legal tools to deal with cyber-terror or other cyber-threats to national security). The experts all agree: that's totally outside the scope of those laws, and they also agreed those laws don't touch on matters of national security at all. Those new laws as they stood were designed specically to adress piracy and breaches of commercial and corporate copyrights in answer to the demands of Hollywood (that financed Obama's campaign) and the videogame industry. One of the lawyers said fears your governement could use PIPA or SOPA to deal with sites like Wikileaks were unfounded (what Wikileaks published isn't even copyrighted or proprietary material). Under PIPA/SOPA, they can't "close down a foreign website" anyway. All they can do is make its DNS unreachable directely. It would be a child's game to reach the site nonetheless (you just need to know it's IP address which would become widely known very rapidly), it just wouldn't show up anymore in search tools like Google and company. The US don't have the technical means to totally shut down a site like Wikileaks outside the US, and SOPA/PIPA don't give it those means.

Beside, the felony in Wikileaks' case was committed by the American guy who leaked the material, not by Wikileaks, a foreign site with foreign proprietors, that bought and published it, nor the worldwide media that relayed the information from Wikileaks (including the New York Times, officially a media partner of Wikileaks, that wasn't charged with anything....). If the US prosecutors thought they had grounds to charge Assange with anything, they would have tried to get him extradited (which could have been complicated, given a great deal countries including your closest allies won't extradite anyone to the US if he faces the death penalty, and I'm pretty sure it includes Australia) but it appears Assange hasn't broken any American law anyway.
Reply to message
English Wikipedia Anti-SOPA Blackout - 17/01/2012 08:31:46 AM 2106 Views
Yeah, man, because currently copyright holders have no recourse, am I right? - 17/01/2012 11:47:35 AM 940 Views
"altering the infrastructure of the Internet so as to render RAFO virtually inaccessible"? - 17/01/2012 08:12:27 PM 1043 Views
I'll go ahead and ask before I get my panties in a bunch: do you understand these bills? - 17/01/2012 09:09:22 PM 1133 Views
I admit I have not looked into it much - 17/01/2012 11:42:30 PM 989 Views
And yet you're still arguing the matter. - 18/01/2012 02:34:04 AM 1094 Views
I love you. *NM* - 18/01/2012 03:41:03 AM 633 Views
heh, thanks. I usually find myself pushing minority opinions. Nice to be "appreciated" for once. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:01:10 AM 620 Views
Can i second the adulation? - 18/01/2012 04:07:17 AM 825 Views
I too (three?) appreciate the common sense and reasonable explanations. *NM* - 18/01/2012 04:12:59 AM 618 Views
Thanks guys. - 18/01/2012 04:39:00 AM 986 Views
Right, because the argument is not just over THIS bill but, apparently, over ANY bill. - 18/01/2012 11:09:13 AM 991 Views
Alternatives to SOPA/PIPA have been proposed for months now. Please stop arguing this. - 18/01/2012 05:42:10 PM 944 Views
That is really all I ask. - 18/01/2012 06:26:37 PM 979 Views
"sensitive federal content"? Provide a source justifying this claim and it's relevance, please. - 18/01/2012 05:59:47 PM 1007 Views
I would not have thought a source necessary. - 18/01/2012 06:24:44 PM 1004 Views
Okay, I'm with Aemon now. - 18/01/2012 07:36:21 PM 1018 Views
OK. - 18/01/2012 10:16:16 PM 1040 Views
Surreal. It's like you're a spam-bot or something. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:23:35 AM 750 Views
That was constructive. - 19/01/2012 03:29:53 PM 916 Views
Very nicely summarised. *NM* - 18/01/2012 02:06:02 AM 554 Views
should be interesting - 17/01/2012 12:41:47 PM 863 Views
Could be; depends on a lot of factors. - 17/01/2012 07:38:55 PM 931 Views
See, that's one of the biggest problems that people aren't understanding. - 17/01/2012 09:31:38 PM 949 Views
So tell them that. - 17/01/2012 11:54:19 PM 1092 Views
Could've done without the snide rejoinder, but, good. - 17/01/2012 02:20:08 PM 867 Views
I love the black banner, like some kind of internet Holocaust. - 17/01/2012 08:03:27 PM 1008 Views
Are you aware that SOPA/PIPA has nothing to do with hackers and everything to do with copyright? - 18/01/2012 02:08:56 AM 849 Views
There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 01:08:22 PM 972 Views
Re: There seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 08:13:15 PM 844 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 10:27:32 PM 1108 Views
Re: There still seems to be some overlap. - 18/01/2012 11:30:39 PM 963 Views
Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable. - 19/01/2012 04:08:58 PM 977 Views
Re: Just because the news does not mention something does not automatically make it non-applicable. - 19/01/2012 10:39:40 PM 962 Views
If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed. - 20/01/2012 09:12:29 PM 1244 Views
Re: If you re-read your last sentence it should be clear why this law is being pushed. - 21/01/2012 03:19:49 AM 870 Views
Welcome to the 99%, Dom - 21/01/2012 08:52:41 AM 941 Views
They taste good with sprinkles. - 21/01/2012 10:00:35 AM 949 Views
Er, what Ghav said. - 18/01/2012 02:30:37 AM 874 Views
Sorry, protecting Pirate Bay and offshore gambling are not compelling counterarguments. - 18/01/2012 11:38:08 AM 914 Views
Okay, another analogy: - 18/01/2012 02:04:12 PM 900 Views
A technical examination of SOPA and PROTECT IP - 18/01/2012 08:32:44 AM 878 Views
"As a disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, I'm a sysadmin." - 18/01/2012 12:47:16 PM 1139 Views
wow, you are totally correct! - 18/01/2012 03:45:54 PM 908 Views
That is a separate issue. - 18/01/2012 04:01:24 PM 908 Views
Thank you for posting that. - 18/01/2012 03:09:07 PM 926 Views
Wikipedia has already convinced me - 18/01/2012 03:26:01 PM 759 Views
Trying to stop this legislation without proposing an alternative is trying to stop ANY legislation. - 18/01/2012 03:44:18 PM 984 Views
It isn't their job to propose legislation - 18/01/2012 04:12:53 PM 904 Views
No, but they have as much RIGHT to do so as anyone else. - 18/01/2012 05:31:55 PM 883 Views
Strike three. - 18/01/2012 05:37:55 PM 941 Views
That is fine; that is what people SHOULD be doing. - 18/01/2012 06:03:59 PM 757 Views
Things being better now than they would be under SOPA seems like a legitimate argument to me - 18/01/2012 09:04:18 PM 1020 Views
Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 18/01/2012 10:46:48 PM 863 Views
Re: Against SOPA, sure; against ANY new law, no. - 19/01/2012 12:15:48 AM 935 Views
That is a poor approach to drafting legislation, at best. - 19/01/2012 04:37:22 PM 976 Views
About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM 1020 Views
So true - 18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM 958 Views
Not to go off on a tangent about combatting piracy... - 18/01/2012 05:38:12 PM 856 Views
Entirely agree *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:13:13 PM 608 Views
That was an excellent post. *NM* - 19/01/2012 11:18:19 PM 587 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation" - 18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM 1095 Views
For those who want a short, one page explanation... - 18/01/2012 05:41:49 PM 886 Views
Yeah, so I use Russian wikipedia for a day. Or German wikipedia, or French, or Italian... *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:23:36 PM 672 Views
We get it: You are a polyglot. - 18/01/2012 06:27:48 PM 876 Views
Or just hit stop right before the script runs. *NM* - 18/01/2012 06:52:40 PM 654 Views
Or just disable Java. *NM* - 19/01/2012 01:58:03 AM 518 Views
That's not as much fun though. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:13:44 AM 645 Views
Exactly, this way its kind of a game. *NM* - 19/01/2012 02:20:37 AM 459 Views
Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... - 19/01/2012 01:07:38 AM 1007 Views
They all did it on twitter - 19/01/2012 01:26:19 AM 941 Views
I was asleep much of the day - 19/01/2012 02:40:11 AM 999 Views
Oh, no; now Congress will be inundated with complaints from lazy college students! - 19/01/2012 04:40:12 PM 1029 Views
13 previously unopposed senators now do not support SOPA. - 19/01/2012 11:36:15 PM 990 Views
How does that "rebutt" what was a facetious post in the first place? - 20/01/2012 09:24:27 PM 1092 Views
a joke can, indeed, be rebutted... - 21/01/2012 09:07:32 PM 979 Views
Oh, draggie, I ALWAYS see what you do there. - 21/01/2012 10:01:58 PM 934 Views

Reply to Message