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. 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.
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
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
Also, in the case of the OPEN Act, it has not "been proposed for months."
18/01/2012 07:28:15 PM
- 1409 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
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
Joel, I think I'm done with this unless you want to do some research.
18/01/2012 02:53:19 AM
- 896 Views
Research would tell me what is wrong with these bills and how a good bill should look.
18/01/2012 11:22:46 AM
- 1013 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
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
The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 03:31:20 PM
- 905 Views
what they SHOULD do is stop taking money from proponents of sopa/pipa
18/01/2012 03:51:09 PM
- 1021 Views
Yes, they should, but, once again, that approach will not prevent a new law.
18/01/2012 04:05:02 PM
- 994 Views
Re: The devil is always in the details, and it seems clear the details need great revision.
18/01/2012 04:27:30 PM
- 944 Views
If the US government wants to summarily block sites within the US, it already can and will.
18/01/2012 06:15:53 PM
- 895 Views
You know all this anti-SOPA bullshit is making me hope the bill passes.
18/01/2012 04:00:17 AM
- 961 Views
I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
18/01/2012 11:41:23 AM
- 985 Views
Re: I would not go THAT far; it seems clear these bills have many objectionable provisions.
19/01/2012 01:57:46 AM
- 809 Views
Yeah, the extreme bias on both sides is why the bills will likely pass more or less as written.
19/01/2012 03:31:52 PM
- 992 Views
joel, you need to consider three things
18/01/2012 06:06:16 AM
- 954 Views
You need to consider that they WILL pass some legislation, and what you want it to contain.
18/01/2012 12:15:38 PM
- 1002 Views
again, it's not about piracy, it's about protecting the mpaa/riaa business model at our expense
18/01/2012 03:34:32 PM
- 1076 Views
Yeah, see, that is the problem: "it's not about piracy."
18/01/2012 03:57:55 PM
- 914 Views
if piracy is such a problem then the mpaa/riaa need to PROVE their losses
19/01/2012 02:43:31 AM
- 934 Views
How do you expect anyone to prove what people WOULD HAVE bought if they could not just take it?
19/01/2012 03:57:24 PM
- 1218 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
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
About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 04:45:08 PM
- 1020 Views
So true
18/01/2012 05:08:45 PM
- 958 Views
Re: About "proposing new legislation"
18/01/2012 05:59:55 PM
- 1095 Views
Hm, you should read my post one above about combatting online piracy.
18/01/2012 06:20:16 PM
- 1047 Views
I would not recommend photocopying a book and handing it out on street corners.
18/01/2012 06:45:52 PM
- 968 Views
Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 07:31:18 PM
- 889 Views
Re: Not to blame, neccessarily. But you have to live in the real world.
18/01/2012 08:55:59 PM
- 978 Views
I always liked the codewheels SSI provided with copies of their Gold Box AD&D games.
18/01/2012 10:07:40 PM
- 1099 Views
These are really different arguments
19/01/2012 12:05:10 AM
- 869 Views
TV is slightly different, because regional availability becomes a factor.
19/01/2012 04:18:58 PM
- 863 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
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
I really don't see the fun in that. Wikipedia is just a tool, not a game. *NM*
19/01/2012 04:59:14 AM
- 561 Views
I don't know about those (except French), but none of the ones I ever used are remotely as good. *NM*
18/01/2012 08:13:47 PM
- 646 Views
Russian wikipedia is very good if you're not checking some obscure Western cultural phenomena.
19/01/2012 01:57:43 AM
- 1043 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
Re: Or Answers.com, or even the actual sources that are often copy/pasted into Wikipedia... *NM*
19/01/2012 01:34:46 AM
- 692 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