Jump to content


- - - - -

Stop the US internet blacklist


#1 Chuplayer   Anticitizen One CAGiversary!   2472 Posts   Joined 16.4 Years Ago  

Chuplayer

Posted 28 October 2010 - 02:24 AM

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/

Yeah, it's an online petition. Those never work, but whatever. I just wanted to get the word out. Freedom is at stake.

#2 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 02:38 AM

Text of bill: http://www.govtrack....?bill=s111-3804

Goodbye, Pirate Bay. Awwwww, poor babies.

#3 Dark_Sage   Banned Banned   3603 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Dark_Sage

Posted 28 October 2010 - 02:48 AM

Text of bill: http://www.govtrack....?bill=s111-3804

Goodbye, Pirate Bay. Awwwww, poor babies.


Yeah, I like the idea of the government telling me what sites I can visit, too. Freedom of choice is for pussies.

#4 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:31 AM

If you read the bill, it emphasizes websites that use infringement. Which has a specific legal definition.

Try again, kid.

#5 SpazX   13 Billion Years in the Making CAGiversary!   8346 Posts   Joined 15.9 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:37 AM

Yeah, I like the idea of the government telling me what illegal things I can't do. Freedom of choice is for pussies.

#6 Kaelestis   poopoo CAGiversary!   723 Posts   Joined 11.0 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 03:43 AM

If you read the bill, it emphasizes websites that use infringement. Which has a specific legal definition.

Try again, kid.


"(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name."

From what I can tell, you could argue sites like Youtube fall under B) and could possibly be censored if this bill was passed. (If I'm reading that correctly.)

Plus, under A) it says mere links can be means to censor a site which I think is kind of stupid.

#7 Indigo_Streetlight  

Indigo_Streetlight

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:05 AM

If you read the bill, it emphasizes websites that use infringement. Which has a specific legal definition.

Try again, kid.


Actually I thought it said it was okay for the site to contain infringed materials as long as it was dedicated to some other commercially viable enterprise. Double-standards ahoy.

#8 Sporadic   done with this site CAGiversary!   9499 Posts   Joined 17.7 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:26 AM

If you read the bill, it emphasizes websites that use infringement. Which has a specific legal definition.

Try again, kid.


Ever hear about the various internet blacklists around the world that are only suppose to be used to take down child porn sites but when the contents of the list leak out it has fun stuff on it like gambling sites, normal porn sites, random legit websites and (in Thailand's case) sites criticizing the royal family.

The list is generated without judicial or public oversight and is kept secret by the ISPs using it. Unaccountability is intrinsic to such a secret censorship system.

Most sites on the list are still censored (i.e must be on the current list), even though many have clearly changed owners or were possibly even wrongly placed on the list, for example the Dutch transport company Vanbokhorst.

The list has been leaked because cases such as Thailand and Finland demonstrate that once a secret censorship system is established for pornographic content the same system can rapidly expand to cover other material, including political material, at the worst possible moment -- when government needs reform.

Two days ago Wikileaks released the secret Internet censorship list for Thailand. Of the 1,203 sites censored this year, all have the internally noted reason of "lese majeste" -- criticizing the Royal family. Like Denmark, the Thai censorship system was originally promoted as a mechanism to prevent the flow of child pornography.

An Australian anti-censorship activist submitted the page to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), requesting that they censor it, under their internal guidelines. The activist wished to expose the "slippery scope" of the proposed Mandatory Internet Censorship scheme.

The press release and the list itself have now been placed into the secret Australian government blacklist of "Prohibited Online Content".

The content on the blacklist is illegal to publish or link to in Australia, with fines of upto $11,000 a day for contraventions.


And the government never ever puts in a small wedge and either expands it when nobody is paying attention or abuses the power they get when there is no oversight to keep them in check. Yup, that has never ever happened, nor will it.

Everything is a-okay. This is clearly for pirate sites only. Nothing else will come of this. There is no threat to you, the common man. If you don't do nothing wrong, there is nothing to worry about.

- edit But on a different note, didn't they already delay the voting on this bill until after the election?

http://www.eff.org/d...ip-bill-delayed

- edit 2 And Myke, what do you think about this?

We, the undersigned, have played various parts in building a network called the Internet. We wrote and debugged the software; we defined the standards and protocols that talk over that network. Many of us invented parts of it. We're just a little proud of the social and economic benefits that our project, the Internet, has brought with it.

We are writing to oppose the Committee's proposed new Internet censorship and copyright bill. If enacted, this legislation will risk fragmenting the Internet's global domain name system (DNS), create an environment of tremendous fear and uncertainty for technological innovation, and seriously harm the credibility of the United States in its role as a steward of key Internet infrastructure. In exchange for this, the bill will introduce censorship that will simultaneously be circumvented by deliberate infringers while hampering innocent parties' ability to communicate.

All censorship schemes impact speech beyond the category they were intended to restrict, but this bill will be particularly egregious in that regard because it causes entire domains to vanish from the Web, not just infringing pages or files. Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill. These problems will be enough to ensure that alternative name-lookup infrastructures will come into widespread use, outside the control of US service providers but easily used by American citizens. Errors and divergences will appear between these new services and the current global DNS, and contradictory addresses will confuse browsers and frustrate the people using them. These problems will be widespread and will affect sites other than those blacklisted by the American government.

The US government has regularly claimed that it supports a free and open Internet, both domestically and abroad. We can't have a free and open Internet without a global domain name system that sits above the political concerns and objectives of any one government or industry. To date, the leading role the US has played in this infrastructure has been fairly uncontroversial because America is seen as a trustworthy arbiter and a neutral bastion of free expression. If the US suddenly begins to use its central position in the DNS for censorship that advances its political and economic agenda, the consequences will be far-reaching and destructive.

Senators, we believe the Internet is too important and too valuable to be endangered in this way, and implore you to put this bill aside.


Spoiler

Edited by Sporadic, 28 October 2010 - 05:42 AM.


#9 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:13 AM

"Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill."

...for instance?

#10 IRHari   COME ON! CAGiversary!   3816 Posts   Joined 13.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 11:11 AM

What has Digital Press done that is blatantly anti-semitic? Dude keeps dodging.

#11 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:10 PM

I mean really, aside from a couple of news sites, Yahoo, CAG, and The Hun, what do any of us really need with the internet?
People go nuts thinking that Big Brother is right around the corner, but think about how many sites can be put up in any given hour, and how well the govt could really audit them. It's just not possible to have "severe" censorship of the internet.

#12 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 11.8 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 05:43 PM

I mean really, aside from a couple of news sites, Yahoo, CAG, and The Hun, what do any of us really need with the internet?
People go nuts thinking that Big Brother is right around the corner, but think about how many sites can be put up in any given hour, and how well the govt could really audit them. It's just not possible to have "severe" censorship of the internet.


tell that to the chinese people.

#13 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:00 PM

well played, but we're not China.

#14 Access_Denied   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   2838 Posts   Joined 14.1 Years Ago  

Access_Denied

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:02 PM

"Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill."

...for instance?


Any site that the government doesn't like. That's the whole argument against this bill. It says only illegal sites, but before you know, every site that the government doesn't like is going to be blocked. For instance, Wikileaks.

EDIT:

well played, but we're not China.


Exactly. So why are we attempting to suppress information like China?

#15 Knoell   Achievement Unlocked CAGiversary!   2584 Posts   Joined 11.8 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:06 PM

well played, but we're not China.


I was just saying that it is possible for the government to exert control over the internet. Our population is more entrenched in the internet though, so it would be vastly more difficult, but little bills like these only serve as a little by little attempt to do it.

The people involved may have absolutely no intention to censor anything besides the illegal things going on, but that doesn't mean it isn't moving the technology and idea of censoring forward inch by inch.

#16 benjamouth   Thanks Larry Davis for the sig !! CAGiversary!   7564 Posts   Joined 15.7 Years Ago  

benjamouth

Posted 28 October 2010 - 06:54 PM

I don't know what you're all so worried about, the government can always be trusted to do what best for us, amirite ?

#17 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:09 PM

I can't believe I'm saying this, but I have to agree with Knoell. To me, the internet needs to stay the wild and unlawful place it is, if bcause it's one of the few places that are. You let them begin by taking down sites like pirate bay and over a large amount of time other laws get passed to blacklist more and more. Just think of how the morality police would love to censor the internet like broadcast television is.

#18 dohdough   Sum Dum Guy CAGiversary!   6860 Posts   Joined 12.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:13 PM

Who needs piratebay when you can subscribe to giganews and service providers only care when you hit their datacap of 250 gigs...

LOLZJUSTPLAYIN...Keep the internet free.

#19 mykevermin   Queen of Scotland CAGiversary!   37011 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:25 PM

Just think of how the morality police would love to censor the internet like broadcast television is.


There was a recent Supreme Court case that was relevant as it involved FOX trying to fight against FCC guidelines, saying that they were draconian and written for a society in which television - network television, that is - was the dominant form of media (aside from radio, and those strange things called newspapers and books). I don't recall the details of the case, but it may have some relevance here. May.

I don't buy the doom and gloom slippery slope argument here, folks. The dominion of the law is rather clear, so I'm not sure I buy wikileaks being suppressed under that bill. Strikes me more as targeting the pirate bay and the like.

#20 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 07:38 PM

The only reason it worries me is that, as with most laws, things have to be categorized. Does it break the law or not, and we're still in the process of creating laws pertaining to the internet, the ones we have were written in our lifetimes. It just worries me that things which shouldn't be blocked will be, that somehow this will be abused. I mean look at how we have the FBI abusing wiretapping, I just don't trust that only illegal sties will be blocked.

I've known for years that once politicians and law enforcement began to understand the internet there would be a push to somehow block or censor sites, I just hoped it wouldn't happen.

And I'm not trying to protect pirates, let law enforcement do everything they can to punish them for breaking the law. I just don't think this really punishes them in any way.

#21 nasum   CAGiversary! CAGiversary!   3480 Posts   Joined 17.1 Years Ago  

Posted 28 October 2010 - 09:42 PM

I don't buy the slippery slope either.

As far as the China argument is concerned, their population is significantly larger than ours so the govt coupld employ people to be internet watchdogs. The flipside of that is that there's significantly less internet connection in rural china compared to rural america. Ergo it would be easier to surpress the internet because (and I hate the way this sounds but) it's more centrally located in the population.

#22 Indigo_Streetlight  

Indigo_Streetlight

Posted 29 October 2010 - 02:45 AM

"Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill."

...for instance?


How about all the fun sites with SNES emulators for starters? How about any site that features a soundtrack from an RPG? With law in hand there's nothing to stop them from going after websites which contain these materials and also do game reviews. I'd say that hits too close to home!

#23 Clak   Made of star stuff. CAGiversary!   8079 Posts   Joined 12.3 Years Ago  

Posted 29 October 2010 - 03:15 AM

Emulators are illegal.

#24 Sporadic   done with this site CAGiversary!   9499 Posts   Joined 17.7 Years Ago  

Posted 29 October 2010 - 04:25 AM

"Worse, an incredible range of useful, law-abiding sites can be blacklisted under this bill."

...for instance?


Well, it means sites like YouTube could get censored in the US. Copyright holders like Viacom argue that copyrighted material is central to activity of YouTube. But under current US law, YouTube is perfectly legal as long as they take down copyrighted material when they're informed about it -- which is why Viacom lost their case in court. If this bill passes, Viacom doesn't even need to prove YouTube is doing anything illegal -- as long as they can persuade a court that enough other people are using it for copyright infringement, that's enough to get the whole site censored.

Isn't the word censored a little overheated?

Not at all. In the US, the way things work is that if you're using the Internet to do something illegal, you're brought to court and the courts can shut you down. This bill would bypass that whole system by forcing Internet service providers to block access to sites that are otherwise up. People in other countries could still get to them, but Internet users in the US would be blocked. This kind of Internet censorship is exactly the sort of thing the US government has been criticizing China and Iran for -- just the other day, Obama told the UN that "We will support a free and open Internet." Now it turns out we're going to start censoring the Internet ourselves.

But it's just limited to copyright!

How long do you think that will last? Once the Attorney General has a system set up for censoring the Internet, everyone who has a problem with a website will want to get in on it. How long before it's expanded to block Wikileaks, pornography, gambling, anarchists, supposed terrorists, and anybody else the Attorney General doesn't like that day? If people are doing something illegal, the government should take them to court and shut them down -- not try to bypass due process by blocking their domain name.


---------------

I don't buy the doom and gloom slippery slope argument here, folks.


I don't buy the slippery slope either.


I don't know what to tell you guys. There are countless examples of other countries who have already done this and abused the power and there are a ton of examples of our own government putting a policy in place and either abusing it or expanding the reach of it when the public eye isn't on them. If you can look at those and still look at this bill as only a way to remove pirate sites...you are kind of blind.

#25 camoor   Jams on foot fires CAGiversary!   15287 Posts   Joined 17.6 Years Ago  

Posted 29 October 2010 - 04:31 AM

There's no due process here. You're subject to the whims of the Justice dept.

You know what that means. Posted videos of
Girl scouts singing happy birthday (© 1935) - BAN HAMMER
Baby laughing with background WMG music (©) - BAN HAMMER!
Wedding party screwing up the electric slide (©) - BAN HAMMER!1!!

After all, Caesar's wife must be above suspicion.

Here's a fun vid that may help the short bus kids "get it". You're unleashing this level of bullshit on the internet, good times.


Edited by camoor, 29 October 2010 - 04:55 AM.


#26 spmahn  

Posted 29 October 2010 - 06:21 AM

Emulators are illegal.


No, emulators are perfectly legal pieces of software, it's the rom images that are not legal to own unless you posses the physical media as well. Of course, since most companies don't bother to enforce 15+ year old copyrights that they no longer make money off of, most people think that it's fine and dandy to emulate without and recourse, not that I disagree.

#27 DarkNessBear   CABear CAGiversary!   6478 Posts   Joined 16.0 Years Ago  

DarkNessBear

Posted 29 October 2010 - 08:51 AM

I'll take the hit if they promise to ban 4chan out of existence...

#28 gargus   Banned Banned   2231 Posts   Joined 11.6 Years Ago  

Posted 29 October 2010 - 03:50 PM

well played, but we're not China.


Yet.

#29 willardhaven   Thief of Life CAGiversary!   7087 Posts   Joined 17.3 Years Ago  

willardhaven

Posted 30 October 2010 - 01:55 PM

I don't get some of your (especially Myke's) boner for copyright law. It's been abused for years and is obviously a tool of corporate interest rather than to protect intellectual property.

This is a ridiculous bill and even if it isn't a slippery slope it does not promote net neutrality, something the U.S. Government has been bitching at other nations about.

#30 camoor   Jams on foot fires CAGiversary!   15287 Posts   Joined 17.6 Years Ago  

Posted 30 October 2010 - 02:08 PM

I don't get some of your (especially Myke's) boner for copyright law. It's been abused for years and is obviously a tool of corporate interest rather than to protect intellectual property.


Myke had some friends who owned a record store that went out of business.

When things get personal, reason often exits the conversation.